Skip to main content

Full text of "A manual of the history of dogmas"

See other formats 


MANUAL 

OF   THE 

H I S  T  ORYopD  OG  MAS 


OTTEN 


A  MANUAL  OF 
THE  HISTORY  OF  DOGMAS 

VOLUME  I 

THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  DOGMAS  DURING 
THE  PATRISTIC  AGE,  100-869 


BY 

REV.  BERNARD  J.  OTTEN,  S.  J. 

PROFESSOR  OF  DOGMATIC  THEOLOGY  AND  THE  HISTORY  OF  DOGMAS 

IN 
ST.   LOUIS  UNIVERSITY 


IERDER 

•*K  >AI  WAY,    ST.    LOUIS,    MO. 

A  ,D 
v^ii 

m~~\~.  r*.  ,:  *»^S6£LL  Si  ,  LONDON,  W    C 
1917 


I M  PRIM  I  POTEST 

Alexander  J.  Burrowes,  SJ. 
Praep.  Prov.  Missour. 

Sti.  Ludovici,  die  6  Jan.  1917. 


NIHIL  OBSTAT 

Sti.  Ludovici,  die  18  Mali,  1917. 

F.  G.  Holweck, 

Censor  Lib ro rum 

MAR  -  4  1053 

IMPRIMATUR 

Sti.  Ludovici,  die  18  Maii,  1917. 

^Joannes  J.  Glennon, 
Archiepiscopus 

Sti.  Ludovici 


Copyright,  1917 

by 
Joseph  Gummersbach 

All  rights  reserved 
Printed  in  U.  S.  A. 


FOREWORD 

The  purpose  of  the  present  book  is  indicated  by  its  title  — 
A  Manual  of  the  History  of  Dogmas.  The  work  strives  to 
present  as  briefly  as  the  subject  matter  permits  what  is  usually 
dwelt  upon  at  length  by  the  Professor  of  the  History  of 
Dogmas  in  his  class-lectures.  It  is  intended  primarily  for 
ecclesiastical  students,  who  follow  a  course  of  lectures  on  this 
important  subject ;  but  it  is  expected  to  provide  useful  reading 
for  those  others  also,  and  they  surely  are  many,  who  are  inter 
ested  in  the  matter  of  Doctrinal  Development.  In  the  author's 
opinion  the  crying  need  there  is  of  a  compendious  History  of 
Dogmas  amply  justifies  the  book's  publication.  No  Manual  of 
this  kind  has  as  yet  appeared  in  English.  It  is  true,  the  first 
three  volumes  of  Tixeront's  excellent  work  in  French  have 
been  issued  in  an  English  translation,  but  that  work  is  too 
voluminous  to  serve  as  a  handbook.  Hence  the  need  of  a  com 
pendious  History  of  Dogmas  still  remains,  and  to  supply  this 
need  the  author  offers  the  present  Manual. 

Feast  of  the  Holy  Name,  1917. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

FOREWORD iii 

BIBLIOGRAPHY * xi 

INTRODUCTION 
DOGMA  AND  THE  HISTORY  OF  DOGMAS I 

CHAPTER  I 

SOCIAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  CONDITION  OF  THE  GENTILE  WORLD  AT 

THE  TIME  OF  THE  FlRST  PREACHING  OF  THE  GOSPEL  .      .  5 

A  —  Social  Conditions 6 

B  — -  The  State  of  Religion 7 

CHAPTER  II 

ISRAEL  AND  ITS  RELATION  TO  CHRISTIANITY 18 

A  —  The  Palestinian  Jews:  Their   Messianic  Hopes    ...     19 
B  —  The  Jews  of  the  Dispersion :  Their  Religious  and  Philo 
sophical  Views 30 

CHAPTER  III 

NEW  TESTAMENT  TEACHING  ON  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  TRUTHS  OF 

CHRISTIANITY 35 

A  —  Christ's  Teaching  on  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  ....  35 

B  — The  Life  Eternal 39 

C  —  St.  Paul's  Doctrine  on  the  Church  of  Christ 41 

D  —  The  Blessed  Trinity  and  the  Person  of  Christ    ....  44 

CHAPTER  IV 

CHRISTIAN  LIFE  IN  APOSTOLIC  TIMES:    FIRST  APPEARANCE  OF 

HERESIES       .      .     .     .  .  v 51 

v 


vi  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  V  PAGE 

^jJTHE  WRITINGS  AND  TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS  .     .     62 

A  —  The  Writings  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers 62 

^       B  —  Teaching  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers 69 

CHAPTER  VI 

HERETICAL  TENDENCIES  AND  PAGAN  OPPOSITION  TO  CHRISTIANITY 

DURING  THE  SECOND  CENTURY 99 

A  —  Gnosticism :    Various    Systems :     Influence   on    Christian 

Thought 101 

B  —  Millennarianism 105 

C  —  Pagan  Opposition 107 

CHAPTER  VII 

SECOND-CENTURY  APOLOGISTS  AND  THEIR  LITERARY  ACTIVITIES  no 
A  —  Defense  of  Christian  Morals :  Christianity  and  Philosophy  113 
B  —  Exposition  of  Christian  Doctrine 115 

CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  TEACHING  OF  ST.  IREN.EUS  AND  ST.  HIPPOLYTUS    ....   138 

CHAPTER  IX 

MONARCHIAN  ABERRATIONS  AND  MONTANISTIC  EXCESSES    .       .       .    153 

A  —  Adoptionism   and   Modalism 153 

B  —  Montanistic  Excesses 156 

CHAPTER  X 

SOME  WESTERN  THEOLOGIANS  AND  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  LATIN 

THEOLOGY 159 

A  —  Tertullian:     His  Trinitarian  and  Christological  Teaching  160 
B  —  Novatian :     His  Treatise  on  the  Trinity  ......   169 

C  —  St.  Cyprian:    His  Teaching  on  the  Church  .     .     .'    .     .171 

CHAPTER  XI 

THE  BAPTISMAL  CONTROVERSY  :  PENANCE  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH  180 
A  —  The  Baptismal  Controversy  .  .  '.  .  .  .' •  .  .  .  180 
B  —  Penance  in  the  Early  Church  .  .  .  ; 183 


CONTENTS  vii 

CHAPTER  XII  PAGE 

FIRST  ATTEMPTS  AT  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY  IN  THE  EAST  .     .     .   190 

A  —  Clement  of  Alexandria .         190 

B  —  Origen:    Alexandria  and  Csesarea:   ',     .....     .   197 

CHAPTER  XIII 
FROM  THE  DEATH  OF  ORIGEN  TO  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^EA    .     .     .  210 

CHAPTER  XIV 

RISE  OF  THE  ARIAN  HERESY  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A    .     .     .  218 

A  —  Rise  of  the  Arian  Heresy 219 

B  —  The  Council  of  Nicsea 223 

C — Some  Fourth  Century  Theologians 228 

CHAPTER  XV 

THE  REACTION  AFTER  NIC^A:    ITS  CAUSES:    AN  OUTLINE  OF 

THE  ARIAN  CONTROVERSY 236 

A  —  The  Reaction  After  Nicaea 236 

B  —  Nature  and  Causes  of  the  Arian  Controversy  .     ,     .     .  237 
C  —  An  Outline  of  the  Arian  Controversy 240 

CHAPTER  XVI 

THE  MACEDONIAN  AND  APOLLINARIAN  HERESIES:    THE  SECOND 

GENERAL  COUNCIL 247 

CHAPTER  XVII 

THE  ESSENCE  AND  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD:  THE  BLESSED  TRINITY  254 
A  —  The  Essence  and  Attributes  of  God  .  .  .  .  .  >  .  254 
B  — The  Blessed  Trinity  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  ...  :.  .260 

CHAPTER  XVIII 

MANICH;EISM   AND   PRISCILLIANISM  :    THE   PROBLEM   OF  EVIL: 

THE  WORK  OF  CREATION  .     .     „     .     *     ....     .     .  276 

A  —  Manichseism  and  Priscillianism      .      .     «     ,     .     .     ,     .  276 
B  — The  Problem  of  Evil    • .    -.    -.     ...  -..»-;     .282 

C  —  The  Work  of  Creation    ....'*.     .;'<..     .284 


viii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  XIX  PAGE 

ANGELOLOGY  :  ANTHROPOLOGY 293 

A  — Angelology .     .     .     .     ...     .293 

B  —  Anthropology        .     .     ...     . 299 

CHAPTER  XX 
THE  WORD  INCARNATE  :     THE  REDEMPTION  OF  THE  WORLD     .     .  308 

A  —  The  Word  Incarnate ^ .     ...     .     .     .308 

B  —  The  Redemption  of  the  World  .     . 316 

CHAPTER  XXI 
-7     THE  DONATIST  HERESY  :    ECCLESIOLOGY 323 

CHAPTER  XXII 
SACRAMENTAL  THEOLOGY 338 

CHAPTER  XXIII 
PELAGIANISM  AND  THE  QUESTION  OF  ORIGINAL  SIN      ....  357 

CHAPTER  XXIV 
THE  QUESTION  OF  GRACE  :    SEMI-PELAGIANISM 368 

A  —  The  Question  of  Grace 3^9 

B  —  Semi-Pelagianism 379 

CHAPTER  XXV 
THE  NESTORIAN  HERESY:    THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS     .     .     .  387 

A  — The  Nestorian  Heresy 387 

B  —  The  Council  of  Ephesus 396 

CHAPTER  XXVI 
THE  MONOPHYSITE  HERESY  :    THE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON    .     .  401 

A  —  The  Monophysite  Heresy 401 

B  — The  Council  of  Chalcedon 404 

CHAPTER  XXVII 
SOME  NEW  DISSENSIONS:    THE  THREE  CHAPTERS:    THE  FIFTH 

GENERAL  COUNCIL .  412 

A  —  Some  New  Dissensions 412 

B  — The  Three  Chapters *     .  415 

C  — The  Fifth  General  Council *...••*     .417 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  XXVIII  PA£? 

THE     MONOTHELITE     CONTROVERSY:     THE     SIXTH     GENERAL 

COUNCIL ' 422 

A  —  The  Monothelite  Controversy .  423 

B  —The  Sixth  General  Council 428 

CHAPTER  XXIX 
CONTEMPORARY  CHRISTOLOGY:     ORTHODOX  MARIOLOGY  ,  .     .     .  433 

A  —  Contemporary  Christology 433 

B  —  Orthodox  Mariology 441 

CHAPTER  XXX 

THE  VENERATION  OF  THE  SAINTS  :    THE  DOCTRINE  OF  PURGATORY  : 

ESCHATOLOGICAL   VlEWS 449 

A  —  The  Veneration  of  the  Saints 449 

B  —  The  Doctrine  of  Purgatory 452 

C  —  Eschatological  Views 457 

CHAPTER  XXXI 

SOME  SUPPLEMENTARY  REMARKS  ON  SUBJECTS  DEALT  WITH  IN 

THE  PRECEDING  CHAPTERS 464 

CHAPTER  XXXII 
THE  IMAGE*  CONTROVERSY:    THE   SEVENTH    GENERAL   COUNCIL  476 

A  —  Historical  Aspect  of  the  Question 477 

B  —  The  Iconoclast  Heresy 481 

C  —  The  Seventh  General  Council 486 

CHAPTER  XXXIII 

THE    FILIOQUE    CONTROVERSY:     SPANISH    ADOPTIONISM:    THE 

EIGHTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL 489 

A  —  The  Filioque  Controversy ;     .  490 

B  —  Spanish  Adoptionism 498 

C  —  The  Eighth  General  Council 501 

Conclusion 504 

Index 509 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The  following  is  a  partial  list  of  books  consulted  in  the  composition 
of  this  Manual.  Those  marked  *  are  by  non-Catholic  authors.  Works 
especially  adapted  for  supplementary  reading  are  referred  to  in  a  foot 
note  at  the  beginning  of  each  chapter. 

Alzog,  J.,  Grundriss  der  Patrologie.    Vierte  Auflage.    Herder,  Frei 
burg,  1888. 

Atzberger,  L.,  Die  Christliche  Eschatologie  in  den  Stadien  ihrer  Offen- 
barung.    Herder,  Freiburg,  1890. 

Geschichte  der  Christlichen  Eschatologie  innerhalb  der  vornicaen- 

ischen  Zeit.     Herder,  Freiburg,  1896. 

Die  Logoslehre  des  hi.    Athanasius.    Muenchen,  1880. 

Bardenhewer,  O.,  Patrology.    Translated  from  the  Second  German 

Edition  by  Thomas  Shahan,  D.D.     Herder,  St.  Louis,  1908. 
Geschichte  der  Altkirchlichen  Litteratur,  3  vols.    Herder,  Frei 
burg,  1902-12. 

Batiffol,  P.,  Primitive  Catholicism.    Translated  from  the  Fifth  French 
Edition  by  H.  L.  Brianceau.     Longmans,  New  York,  1911. 

fitudes  d'Histoire  et  de  Theologie  Positive.     Cinquieme  Edition,  J. 

Gabalda  &  Cie,  Paris,  1907. 

*  Benson,  White,  E.,  Cyprian:  His  Life,  His  Times,  His  Work.    D. 

Appleton,  New  York,  1897. 

*  Bethune-Baker,  J.  F.,  An  Introduction  to  the  Early  History  of  Chris 

tian  Doctrine.     Methuen  &  Co.,  London,  1903. 
Cumont,  F.,  The  Mysteries  of  Mithra.    Translated  from  the  Second 

Revised  French  Edition  by  Thomas  J.  McCormack.     Keagan  Paul, 

London,  1903. 
D'Ales,  A.,  La  Theologie  de  Saint  Hippolyte.    Beauchesne  &  Cie,  Paris, 

1906. 

La  Theologie  de  Tertullien.     Beauchesne  &  Cie,  Paris,  1905. 

L'fidit   de   Calliste:     fitude   sur   les   Origines   de   la   Penitence 

Chretienne.     Beauchesne  &  Cie.     Paris,  1915. 
Doellinger,  J.  L,  Hippolytus  and  Callistus,  or  the  Church  of  Rome  in 

the  first  half  of  the  Third  Century.     Edinburgh,  1876. 
Jew  and  Gentile  in  the  Courts  of  the  Temple  of  Christ,  2  vols. 

1862  foil. 

*  Dorner,  A.,  Grundriss  der  Dogmengeschichte,  Reimer,  Berlin,  1899. 
Duchesne,  L.,  Early  History  of  the  Christian  Church.    Translated  from 

the   Fourth    French    Edition,   2   vols.    Longmans,    New   York, 
1911-12. 

xi 


xii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Christian  Worship:  Its  Origin  and  Evolution.  A  Study  of  the 

Latin  Liturgy  up  to  the  Time  of  Charlemagne.  Translated  from 
the  Third  French  Edition  by  M.  L.  McClure.  Second  English 
Edition,  London,  1904. 

Dufourcq,  A.,  Saint  Irenee.     Deuxieme  Edition.    Lecoffre,  Paris,  1904. 

*  Farrar,  F.,  Lives  of  the  Fathers,  2  vols.     MacMillan,  New  York,  1889. 
Feder,  A.  L.,  Justins  des  Maertyrers  Lehre  von  Jesus  Christus.     Eine 

Dogmengeschichtliche  Monographic.     Herder,  Freiburg,  1906. 

Felten,  J.,  Neutestamentliche  Zeitgeschichte,  oder  Judentum  und  Hei- 
dentum  zur  Zeit  Christi  und  der  Apostel,  2  vols.  Manz,  Regens- 
burg,  1910. 

Fortescue,  A.,  The  Orthodox  Eastern  Church.  Second  Edition.  Cath 
olic  Truth  Society,  London,  1908. 

Funk,  F.  X.,  Patres  Apostolici,  2  vols.     Tuebingen,  1901. 

Didascalia  et  Constitutions  Apostolorum.     Paderborn,  1905. 

Kirchengeschichtliche  Abhandlungen  und  Untersuchungen,  3  vols. 

Paderborn,  1897  f°H- 

*  Gwatkin,  H.  M.,  Studies  of  Arianism,  chiefly  referring  to  the  char 

acter  and  chronology  of  the  reaction  which  followed  the  Council 
of  Nicaea.  Second  Edition.  Cambridge,  1900. 

*  Harnack,  A.,  Lehrbuch  der  Dogmengeschichte,  3  vols.     Vierte  neu 

durchgearbeitete  und  vermerte  Auflage.     Tuebingen,  1909. 
Die  Mission  und  Ausbreitung  des  Christentums  in  den  ersten  drei 

Jahrhunderten,  2  vols.     Zweite  Auflage.     Leipzig,  1906. 
Hefele,  C.  J.,  A  History  of  the  Councils  of  the  Church,  7  vols.    Second 

German  Edition,  1879  foil.     Only  the  first  three  volumes  have  been 

translated  into  English.    Edinburgh,  T.  &  T.  Clark. 
Hergenroether,  J.,  Handbuch  der  allgemeinen  Kirchengeschichte,  3 

vols.    Vierte    Auflage,   neu    bearbeitet   von    Dr.    J.    P.    Kirsch. 

Herder,  Freiburg,  1902. 
Photius,  Patriarch  von  Konstantinopel.     Sein  Lebert,  seine  Schrif- 

ten  und  das  Griechische  Schisma,  3  vols.     1867-69. 
Kellner,  K.  A.  H.,  Heortology:  A  History  of  Christian  Festivals. 

Herder,  St.  Louis,  1908. 

Kern,  J.,  Tractatus  de  Extrema  Unctione.     Pustet,  Ratisbon,  1907. 
Klee,  H.,  Lehrbuch  der  Dogmengeschichte,  2  vols.     Mainz,  1837  foil. 
Kirsch,  J.  P.,  Die  Lehre  von  der  Gemeinschaft  der  Heiligen  im  Christ- 
lichen  Alterthum.     Kirchheim,  Mainz,  1900. 
Krebs,  E.,  Der  Logos  als  Heiland  im  ersten  Jahrundert.    Herder, 

Freiburg,  1910. 
Lebreton,  J.    Les  Origines  du  Dogme  de  la  Trinite.     Beauchesne  & 

Cie,  Paris,  1910. 
Lepin,  M.,  Christ  and  the  Gospel  or  Jesus  the  Messiah  and  Son  of  God. 

Authorized  English  Version.    McVey,  Philadelphia,  1910. 

*  Lightfoot,  J.  B.,  Dissertations  on  the  Apostolic  Age.    London,  1892. 
The  Apostolic  Fathers,  4  vols.    London,  1885-90. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xiii 

*Loofs,  F.,  Leitfaden  zum  Studium  der  Dogmengeschichte.     Dritte 

Auflage.     Halle,  1892. 
Maguire,  E.,  Is  Schism  Lawful?    A  Study  in  Primitive  Ecclesiology 

with  Special  Reference  to  the  Question  of  Schism.     Gill  &  Son, 

Dublin,  1915. 
Mansi,  Joan.  Dom.,  Sacrorum  Conciliorum  Nova  et  Amplissima  Col- 

lectio,  63  vols.     Paris,  1903  foil. 
Migne,  J.  F.,  Patrologise  Cursus  Completus.     Series  Graeca,  161  vols. 

Series  Latina,  221  vols.     Paris,  1854  foil. 
Newman,  J.  H.,  An  Essay  on  the  Development  of  Christian  Doctrine. 

Eleventh  Edition.     Longmans,  New  York,  1900. 

The  Arians  of  the  Fourth  Century.     New  Edition.    London,  1901. 

O'Donnell,  M.  J.,  Penance  in  the  Early  Church.     Gill  &  Son,  Dublin, 

1908. 

O'Dwyer,  M.,  Confirmation.  A  Study  of  the  Development  of  Sacra 
mental  Theology.  Benziger,  New  York,  1915. 

*  Otto,  J.  K.  T.,  Corpus  Apologetarum  Christianorum  Saeculi  Secundi, 

9  vols.     Third  Edition.     Jena,  1876  foil. 

Petavius,  Dionys.,  De  Theologicis  Dogmatibus,  4  vols.  Paris,  1644 
foil. 

Pourrat,  P.,  Theology  of  the  Sacraments.  A  Study  in  Positive  The 
ology.  Authorized  Translation  from  the  Third  French  Edition. 
Herder,  St.  Louis,  1910. 

Prat,  F.,  La  Theologie  de  Saint  Paul,  2  vols.  Deuxieme  Edition. 
Beauchesne  &  Cie,  Paris,  1908-10. 

Probst,  F.,  Liturgie  der  drei  ersten  Jahrhunderte.     Tuebingen,  1870. 

Liturgie  des  4  Jahrhunderts  und  deren  Reform.     Muenster,  1893. 

*  Ramsay,  W.  M.,  The  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire  before   170. 

London,  1893. 
Rauschen,  G.,  Eucharist  and  Penance  in  the  First  Six  Centuries  of  the 

Church.     Authorized    Translation    from    the     Second    German 

Edition.     Herder,  St.  Louis,  1913. 
Grundrisz  der  Patrologie,  mit  besonderer  Beruecksichtigung  der 

Dogmengeschichte.     Herder,  Freiburg,  1906. 

*  Realencyklopaedie   fuer   Protestantische   Theologie  und   Kirche,   22 

vols.     Herzog-Hauck,  Leipzig,  1896-1909. 

Renaudot,  E.,  Liturgiarum  Orientalium  Collectio,  2  vols.  Paris, 
1715-16. 

Riviere,  J.,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  2  vols.  Authorized  Trans 
lation  by  Luigi  Cappadelta.  Herder,  St.  Louis,  1909. 

Schwane,  J.,  Historic  des  Dogmes,  6  vols.  French  Translation  from 
the  Second  German  Edition  by  A.  Degert  and  P.  Belet.  Beau 
chesne  &  Cie,  Paris,  1903-4. 

Struckmann,  A.,  Die  Gegenwart  Christi  in  der  hi.  Eucharistie  nach 
den  schriftlichen  Quellen  der  vornicaenischen  Zeit.  Wien,  1905. 

*  Swainson,  C.  A.,  The  Greek  Liturgies,  chiefly  from  original  authori 

ties.    Cambridge,  1884. 


xiv  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Thurston,  H.,  The  Memory  of  our  Dead.    Herder,  St.  Louis,  1916. 
Tixeront,  J.,  History  of  Dogmas,  3  vols.    Patristic  Period.    Translated 

from  the  Fifth  French  Edition  by  H.  L.  B.    Herder,  St.  Louis, 

1910-16. 
Toner,  P.  J.,  Dissertatio  Historico-Theologica  de  Lapsu  et  Peccato 

Originali.     Browne  &  Nolan,  Dublin,  1904. 
Truth  Society,  Catholic,  Lectures  on  the  History  of  Religions,  5  vols. 

Herder,  St.  Louis,  1910-11. 
Turmel,  J.,  Histoire  de  la  Theologie  Positive,  2  vols.     Beauchesne  & 

Cie,  1904-6. 
Wilpert,  J.,  Die  Malereien  in  den  Katakomben  Roms.    Freiburg,  1903. 


A  MANUAL  OF  THE  HISTORY 
OF  DOGMAS 


INTRODUCTION 

Dogma  and  the  History  of  Dogmas 

The  word  dogma,  like  many  other  religious  and  philosophi 
cal  terms  adopted  from  ancient  usage,  received  a  new  meaning 
as  employed  by  Christian  writers.  In  the  philosophical  lan 
guage  of  Greece  it  was  commonly  used  to  signify  tenets  or 
doctrines  resting  on  a  solid  basis,  whether  of  authority  or 
reason,  and  as  such  claiming  the  assent  of  a  prudent  mind. 
In  this  sense  Plutarch  speaks  of  "  the  dogmas  concerning  the 
soul "  x  and  Aristotle  refers  to  the  "  unwritten  dogmas  of 
Plato." 2  Latin  writers  on  philosophy  attached  a  similar 
meaning  to  the  term.  Thus,  for  instance,  Cicero  says  that 
the  decrees  of  wisdom  "  are  called  dogmata  by  philosophers, 
and  none  of  them  can  be  set  aside  without  making  one  guilty 
of  a  crime."  3 

This  was,  however,  a  derived  meaning.  Primarily  the  term 
denoted  anything  that  seemed  good  or  reasonable;  hence  an 
opinion,  a  resolution,  a  precept,  or  ordinance.  In  this  sense 
it  occurs  several  times  in  Holy  Scripture,  especially  in  the 
New  Testament.  Thus  the  edict  of  Caesar  Augustus,  that  the 
whole  world  should  be  enrolled,  is  called  a  dogma;  4  a  body 
of  such  edicts  is  referred  to  as  dogmata;  5  ordinances  of  the 
Mosaic  Law  are  designated  by  the  same  term,6  as  are  also 
the  authoritative  decisions  of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  in 
reference  to  the  observances  enjoined  by  the  Law  of  Christ.7 

Early  Christian  writers  use  the  term  in  both  senses,  and 
sometimes  in  one  and  the  same  connection.  Ignatius  of  An- 
tioch,  for  instance,  speaks  of  the  "  dogmata  of  the  Lord  and 

1  Mor.  14,  3.  5  Acts,  16,  4. 

2  Phys.  Ausc.  4,  2.  6  Ephes.  2,  15. 

3  Acad.  2,  9.  7  Acts,  16,  4;  15,  20. 

4  Luke,  2,  i. 


2  INTRODUCTION 

the  Apostles/' 8  understanding  thereby  their  teaching  and 
precepts.  The  Greek  Apologists  of  the  second  century  fre 
quently  refer  to  the  "  Christian  dogmata"  as  a  philosophy  of 
life,  regarding  them  as  a  guide  both  in  respect  of  faith  and 
moral  conduct.  Little  by  little,  however,  we  find  the  term 
restricted  to  matters  of  faith  as  contrasted  with  precepts. 
Thus  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  who  wrote  in  the  fourth  century, 
says :  "  The  way  of  godliness  is  composed  of  two  things,  pious 
doctrines  (dogmata)  and  good  actions."  9 

This  latter  has  become  the  exclusive  meaning  of  Christian 
dogma.  Still,  even  as  used  at  present,  the  term  has  both  a 
wider  and  a  stricter  sense.  In  its  wider  sense  it  is  applied  to 
any  doctrine  which  in  the  eyes  of  the  Church  is  essential  to  the 
true  interpretation  of  the  faith.  In  its  more  restricted  mean 
ing  it  denotes  a  revealed  truth  which  has  in  some  way  been 
defined  by  an  infallible  teaching  authority,  and  as  such  is  pro 
posed  to  the  acceptance  of  the  faithful.  It  is  only  in  this  latter 
sense  that  the  term  is  used  in  the  History  of  Dogmas. 

Hence  Christian  Dogma  is  obviously/  less  inclusive  than 
Christian  Doctrine ;  for  this  latter  comprises  not  only  defined 
truths,  but  also  such  others  as  are  ordinarily  set  forth  in 
the  instruction  of  the  faithful  with  the  simple  approval  of 
the  magisterium  ecclesiasticum.  Obviously,  too,  Christian 
Dogma  presupposes  two  things :  the  fact  of  revelation  and  the 
existence  of  an  infallible  teaching  authority. 

The  History  of  Dogmas  is  a  part  of  Ecclesiastical  History, 
and  as  such  it  forms  a  record  of  the  development  of  the 
Church's  teaching,  taking  due  account  of  the  causes  of  that 
development,  both  internal  and  external,  and  presenting  the 
final  results  of  this  critical  inquiry  in  an  orderly  manner.  It 
presupposes  that  revealed  truths  are  objectively  permanent 
and  immutable,  and  also  that  their  subjective  apprehension  and 
outward  expression  admits  of  progress.  Hence  whilst  the 
meaning  of  doctrines  once  revealed  never  changes,  these  doc 
trines  may  nevertheless  in  course  of  time  come  to  be  under 
stood  more  fully,  be  presented  more  clearly,  and  receive  a  cer- 

8  Ad.  Magn.  13.  9  Cathech.  4,  2. 


INTRODUCTION  3 

tain  emphasis  from  their  due  coordination  with  other  truths. 
In  this  sense  every  revealed  truth  is  a  living  germ,  the  growth 
and  unfolding  of  which  is  traced  up  and  recorded  in  the  His 
tory  of  Dogmas. 

The  determining  cause  of  this  growth  is  twofold.  First, 
the  God-given  vitality  of  the  Church,  which  assimilates  ever 
more  fully  the  contents  of  revealed  truths  as  time  passes  on. 
Secondly,  the  rise  of  heresies,  which  calls  for  a  clearer  state 
ment  of  the  truths  contained  in  the  depositum  fidei.  Both 
contribute  to  the  development  of  dogmas,  but  each  in  its  own 
way. 

How  vast  this  development  has  been,  and,  by  inference,  will 
continue  to  be,  one  begins  to  realize  only  on  comparing  the 
definitions  of  later  councils,  as,  for  instance,  that  of  Trent, 
with  corresponding  statements  of  the  same  revealed  truths  as 
contained  in  the  Patristic  writings  of  the  first  centuries  of  the 
Church.  Equivalence  of  thought  there  may  be,  and  identity 
of  objective  reality,  of  course,  there  is;  but  in  all  else  the  two 
seem  worlds  apart.  These  early  Fathers  believed  all  that  we 
believe,  for  they  had  the  complete  depositum  fidei;  but  much 
of  what  they  believed  was  only  implicitly  contained  in  the 
faith  as  then  explicitly  taught  by  the  Church.  It  required 
ages  of  thought  and  struggle  before  the  mustard  seed  of  the 
Gospel  could  grow  into  a  fully  developed  tree,  whose  branches 
extend  ever  farther  and  farther  over  the  vast  region  of  re 
vealed  truth. 

To  trace  up  these  various  lines  of  thought,  to  follow  in 
retrospect  these  mental  struggles  towards  a  fuller  and  clearer 
light,  properly  constitutes  the  object  of  the  History  of  Dog 
mas.  It  implies,  therefore,  an  unbiased  and  critical  investi 
gation  of  facts,  an  historical  sifting  of  evidence,  in  reference 
to  the  development  of  those  religious  truths  which  the  Church 
has  authoritatively  declared  to  have  been  revealed  by  God.  It 
calls  for  an  accurate  and  truthful  determination  of  the  "  course 
followed  by  Christian  thought  in  that  evolution  which  thus 
brought  it  from  the  primitive  elements  of  its  doctrine  to  the 
development  of  its  theology.  What  were  the  stages  in  that 


4  INTRODUCTION 

progress  ?  What  impulses,  what  suspensions,  what  hesitations 
did  it  undergo?  What  circumstances  threatened  to  bring 
about  its  deviation  from  that  path,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
in  certain  parts  of  the  Christian  community,  what  deviations 
did  occur?  By  what  men  and  how  was  this  progress  accom 
plished,  and  what  were  the  ruling  ideas,  the  dominant  princi 
ples,  which  determined  its  course?  These  questions  the  His 
tory  of  Dogmas  must  answer."  10 

From  this  it  is  sufficiently  clear  that  the  Sources  of  the  His 
tory  of  Dogmas  must  include  all  the  records  of  both  the  in 
ternal  and  external  life  of  the  Church  —  the  works  of  the 
Fathers  and  of  ecclesiastical  writers,  the  writings  of  heretics, 
the  various  symbols  of  the  faith,  liturgical  works  and  Chris 
tian  art,  constitutions,  decrees,  and  decisions  of  Popes  and 
Congregations,  declarations  and  definitions  of  councils,  both 
general  and  particular,  and  whatever  else  may  bear  witness  to 
the  gradual  unfolding  and  final  maturing  of  any  given  dogma, 
beginning  with  the  first  heart-throb  of  the  Infant  Church, 
after  the  Pentecostal  showers  had  descended  upon  the  Apos 
tles,  and  leading  up  to  that  fullness  of  life  which  she  may  have 
attained  at  the  moment  when  the  .history  of  dogmatic  de 
velopment  is  set  down  by  the  writer. 

Strictly  speaking,  the  records  of  revelation  itself  do  not  fall 
within  the  scope  of  the  History  of  Dogmas,  although  a  general 
outline  of  the  revealed  truths  contained  therein  is  almost  in 
dispensable  for  a  full  understanding  of  later  developments.  To 
prove  that  the  contents  of  Holy  Scripture  are  truly  the  word 
of  God,  and  to  show  what  progress  there  was  in  the  manifes 
tation  of  that  word,  are  matters  which  the  historian  of  dog 
matic  development  must  leave  to  writers  who  deal  explicitly 
with  the  history  of  divine  revelation.  The  most  he  can  do 
is  to  group  together  the  obvious  teaching  of  the  Sacred  Writ 
ings,  and  then  show  how  this  original  deposit  entered  into 
Christian  consciousness  in  later  ages.  He  simply  accepts  the 
seed  and  records  its  growth. 

10Tixeront,  Hist.  Dogm.  I,  2. 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  SOCIAL  AND  RELIGIOUS  CONDITION  OF  THE  GENTILE 
WORLD  AT  THE  TIME  OF  THE  FIRST  PREACHING  OF  THE 
GOSPEL i 

As  the  reception  and  assimilation  of  truth,  even  in  the  super 
natural  order,  is  to  some  extent  conditioned  by  the  religious 
and  moral  disposition  of  the  persons  to  whom  it  is  proposed, 
it  is  first  of  all  necessary  to  cast  a  glance  at  the  state  of  the 
world  in  which  Christianity  made  its  appearance.  What  was 
the  social  condition  of  the  various  peoples  to  whom  the  Gospel 
was  preached  ?  What  were  their  religious  views,  their  moral 
tendencies,  their  philosophical  interpretation  of  things?  In 
one  word,  what  was  the  nature  of  the  soil  in  which  the  seed 
of  revealed  truth  was  first  planted? 

During  the  earlier  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  the  preach 
ing  of  the  Gospel  was  practically  confined  to  the  different 
countries  that  made  up  the  Roman  Empire.  Territorially 
this  was  of  vast  extent,  forming  an  immense  ellipse,  whose 
major  axis  extended  from  the  north  of  England  to  the  river 
Euphrates,  whilst  its  minor  axis  reached  from  Lower  Austria 
to  the  Sahara  Desert.  Its  population  was  necessarily  of  an 
extremely  heterogeneous  character,  comprising  as  it  did  a  great 
variety  of  nations  and  tribes.  Latins,  Greeks,  Egyptians,  Syr 
ians,  Phoenicians,  Jews,  Celts,  Teutons,  and  Iberians  were 

1  On  the  contents  of  this  chapter  tion  of  Ancient  Religions  is  well 
much  valuable  information  may  be  treated  in  the  series  edited  by  Mar- 
found  in  Dr.  Doellinger's  work,  tindale,  under  the  title,  "  Lectures  on 
"Jew  and  Gentile  in  the  Courts  of  the  History  of  Religions."  Vols.  I 
the  Temple  of  Christ."  The  ques-  &  II. 


6  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

all  brought  together  into  one  great  commonwealth,  of  which 
Rome  was  the  mistress.  Although  each  conquered  nation  con 
tinued  to  dwell  in  its  own  definite  territory,  still  there  was 
considerable  intermingling  of  races,  especially  by  way  of  colo 
nization  and  commerce.  Thus  Roman  colonists  established 
themselves  among  the  Celts  in  Gaul  and  Britain,  among  the 
Iberians  in  Spain,  among  the  Greeks  in  the  Grecian  Archipel 
ago  and  in  Asia  Minor;  whilst  Jewish  and  Phoenician  mer 
chants  settled  down  wherever  there  was  hope  of  gain.  Greek 
philosophers  and  rhetoricians,  Oriental  mystics,  and  charlatans 
from  all  over  the  Empire  crowded  the  streets  of  Rome.  It 
was  a  vast  and  varied  throng  to  which  the  Gospel  of  Christ 
was  about  to  be  announced ;  numbering  in  all,  it  is  estimated, 
over  a  hundred  million  human  beings. 

A  —  SOCIAL  CONDITIONS 

Rome  was  intent  not  only  upon  extending  the  boundaries 
of  the  State,  but  also  on  building  up  an  empire  in  which  the 
various  discordant  elements  should  be  reduced  to  some  sort  of 
homogeneity.  Hence,  so  far  as  was  consistent  with  the  Ro 
mans'  sense  of  superiority,  an  effort  was  made  to  break  down 
national  barriers  and  to  cause  the  conquered  peoples  to  regard 
themselves  as  integral  parts  of  a  great  world-empire.  For 
this  purpose  the  most  distant  provinces  were  closely  bound  to 
the  Capital  City  by  means  of  excellent  military  roads,  by  an  effi 
cient  postal  service,  and  the  publication  of  Acta,  wherein  were 
recounted  the  current  social  happenings,  court  proceedings,  and 
literary  news.  To  conciliate  the  provincials  still  further,  na 
tional  customs,  religious  worship  and  local  administration  of 
justice  were  usually  not  interfered  with,  although  there  was 
constantly  a  silent  influence  at  work  to  make  Roman  views  and 
Roman  ways  gain  the  ascendancy.  The  result  of  this  was,  not 
indeed  national  unity,  but  some  sort  of  peaceful  association, 
wherein  conquerors  and  conquered  admitted  that  they  were 
made  of  the  same  clay. 

Yet  whilst  there  was  thus  brought  about  some  kind  of  rap 
prochement  between  nation  and  nation,  nothing  of  the  sort  was 
ever  attempted  between  the  free  and  the  bond,  between  the  rich 


THE  GENTILE  WORLD  7 

and  the  poor.  In  this  respect  Roman  society  was  always  di 
vided  against  itself,  and  therein  lay  its  weakness.  Of  the  one 
hundred  million  inhabitants  of  the  Empire  at  least  a  third  were 
slaves.  In  some  cities  the  proportion  was  even  much  higher. 
Rome  itself  at  the  time  of  Augustus  counted  over  six  hundred 
thousand  in  a  population  of  a  million  and  a  half.  Every 
wealthy  citizen  had  his  scores  or  hundreds  or  even  thousands  of 
slaves,  employed  partly  in  his  city  residence  and  partly  on  his 
rural  estates.  How  miserable  was  the  lot  of  these  unfortu 
nates,  history  tells  only  too  plainly.  In  principle  they  were 
rated  below  beasts  of  burden,  and  in  practice  they  frequently 
received  worse  treatment.  They  were  the  master's  absolute 
property,  mere  chattels,  which  he  might  use  or  abuse  as  he 
pleased.  They  had  no  legal  personality,  and  consequently 
could  find  no  redress. 

Very  numerous,  too,  were  the  absolutely  poor,  who  had  no 
means  of  gaining  a  livelihood  save  only  by  begging  or  by  ac 
cepting  largesses  bestowed  either  by  the  State  or  by  private 
patrons.  This  latter  abuse  assumed  in  course  of  time  frightful 
dimensions.  Thus  it  is  said  of  Augustus  that  he  had  to  pro 
vide  daily  rations  of  corn  and  money  for  over  two  hundred 
thousand  citizens,  whilst  thousands  of  stranded  foreigners  de 
pended  entirely  on  the  crumbs  that  fell  from  the  rich  man's 
table.  Charitable  institutions  there  were  none,  nor  was  there 
charity.  As  Polybius  puts  it :  "A  Roman  never  gives  any 
one  anything  ungrudgingly."  *The  poor  were  commonly  re 
garded  as  accursed  of  the  gods.  In  Greece  poverty  was  equally 
widespread,  but  there,  owing  to  a  democratic  form  of  govern 
ment,  the  poor  forced  the  rich  to  maintain  them  at  the  public 
expense. 

B  —  THE  STATE  OF  RELIGION 

At  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era,  the  prevalent  religion 
of  the  Empire  was  largely  a  sort  of  syncretism,  resulting  from 
a  combination  of  the  religious  views  and  practices  of  the  chief 
components  of  the  population.  Of  these  the  ancient  Roman, 
the  Greek,  Egyptian,  and  Syrian  played  the  principal  parts. 
The  Celtic  and  German  religious  views  remained  almost  en- 


8  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

tirely  confined  to  the  peoples  of  these  nationalities.  Hence 
it  is  only  of  the  former  that  anything  need  be  said  in  this  con 
nection. 

i°.  Roman  Religious  Views:  Roman  Gods:  Roman  Phi 
losophy  and  its  Influence  on  Religion. —  It  has  been  said  that 
the  religion  of  Rome  was  based  on  only  two  ideas  —  the  might 
of  the  gods  who  were  friendly  to  the  State  and  the  power  of 
religious  ceremonies  over  the  gods.  Hence  in  practice  re 
ligion  did  not  consist  in  the  exercise  of  virtue  as  enjoined 
by  the  gods,  but  in  the  faithful  and  exact  performance  of  re 
ligious  rites.  The  old  Romans  were  indeed  renowned  for 
their  virtus,  but  this  term,  including  in  its  significance 
"  self-mastery,  an  unbending  firmness  of  will,  with  patience, 
and  an  iron  tenacity  of  purpose  in  carrying  through  whatever 
was  once  acknowledged  to  be  right/'  had  primarily  an  ethical 
bearing;  in  the  minds  of  the  people  it  was  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  unconnected  with  religion.  It  was  the  ceremonial 
rites  that  constituted  religion  properly  so  called.  These  rites 
consisted  of  sacrifice  and  divinations,  which  were  performed  by 
an  hierarchical  priesthood,  with  the  Pontifex  Maximus  at  its 
head.  The  priesthood  was  largely  hereditary,  and  up  to  the 
fourth  century  before  Christ  open  only  to  persons  of  patrician 
rank.  In  the  beginning  human  sacrifices  seem  to  have  been 
offered,  but  within  the  strictly  historical  period  there  is  evi 
dence  only  of  the  sacrifice  of  animals  and  the  produce  of  the 
earth. 

As  long  as  the  Roman  religion  remained  uninfluenced  by 
the  speculations  of  philosophy,  and  that  was  almost  up  to  the 
foundation  of  the  Empire,  it  was  essentially  polytheistic. 
Still,  beyond  even  the  mightiest  gods  there  existed  in  the  popu 
lar  mind  the  omnipotent  fortuna  and  the  ineluctabile  fatum, 
which  may  perhaps  be  taken  as  a  faint  echo  of  a  prim 
itive  monotheistic  belief.  The  principal  indigenous  gods  were 
Janus  and  Jana,  Saturn,  Jupiter  Optimus  Maximus,  Juno, 
Vesta,  Mars,  and  Ops.  These  were  general  nature-powers, 
or  mere  abstractions  of  the  human  state,  and,  until  Greek  in 
fluence  was  brought  to  bear  upon  the  popular  view  concerning 
them,  they  advanced  to  no  real  personality. 


THE  GENTILE  WORLD  9 

Although  the  ancient  Romans  were  an  intensely  practical 
people,  without  myths  and  without  a  literature,  yet  even  dur 
ing  the  first  five  hundred  years  of  the  city's  existence,  gods 
and  genii  multiplied  exceedingly,  so  that  nearly  every  human 
occupation  and  every  circumstance  of  life  had  some  superior 
being  as  its  guardian  and  protector.  This  was  a  logical  out 
come  of  the  deification  of  nature.  It  is  usually  admitted, 
though  some  writers  take  a  different  view  of  the  matter,  that 
the  gods  were  conceived  to  have  an  influence  only  on  the  phys 
ical  and  not  on  the  moral  life  of  their  worshipers.  Hence 
Cicero  makes  his  Academician  say :  "  Herein,  indeed,  are  all 
agreed,  that  they  have  received  external  advantages  —  vine 
yards,  corn-fields,  olive-gardens,  blessings  on  fruit  of  tree  and 
field,  and,  in  fine,  all  the  comforts  and  conveniences  of  life  — 
at  the  hands  of  the  gods;  but  no  one  has  ever  acknowledged 
virtue  as  a  gift  of  the  deity  and  returned  thanks  for  it  as 
such."  2 

This  relation  of  the  gods  to  their  worshipers  was  changed 
very  much  for  the  worse  when,  with  the  conquest  of  Greece 
and  Oriental  countries,  the  sensual  Greek  and  the  bestial  East 
ern  rites  found  an  entrance  into  Rome.  Then  the  gods,  in 
stead  of  being  merely  unconnected  with  the  practice  of  virtue 
among  men,  became  examples  of  lustful  indulgence  and  in- 
citers  of  criminal  deeds.  There  was  no  excess  so  foul  but 
had  its  divine  warrant  in  the  conduct  of  some  god,  and  in 
many  instances  religious  worship  itself  was  made  to  consist 
of  the  most  shameful  orgies.  At  first  the  Roman  Senate 
struggled  bravely  against  the  abominations  practiced  in  the 
Bacchanalia  and  other  exotic  rites,  not  shrinking  even  from 
executing  thousands  of  participants ;  but  Roman  virtue,  which 
had  always  been  entirely  human,  was  not  proof  against  these 
sensual  seductions,  and  the  end  was  universal  corruption. 
There  still  were,  indeed,  individual  men  and  women  who  clung 
to  their  primitive  views  and  longed  for  higher  things;  yet 
they  formed  but  a  dwindling  minority.  Rome  was  religiously 
and  morally  bankrupt. 

It  was  under  these  conditions  that  Roman  philosophy  made 

2  Natura  Deor.  3,  36. 


io  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

its  appearance.  This,  too,  was  an  importation  from  Greece, 
and  did  not  strike  root  until  the  last  years  of  the  Republic. 
Then  a  Stoic  and  an  Epicurean  school  were  founded,  but 
neither  of  them  did  more  than  popularize  Greek  philosophical 
notions.  Of  the  two,  the  Epicurean  school  of  thought  was 
at  first  in  greatest  favor;  its  sensual  doctrines  being  widely 
spread  by  the  poet  Lucretius.  He  ridiculed  the  national  gods, 
believed  in  nothing  but  material  nature,  and  consequently  de 
nied  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  which  had  till  then  been 
unhesitatingly  accepted  by  the  people.  The  sum  and  sub 
stance  of  Epicurean  teaching,  at  least  in  its  later  development, 
comes  to  this :  Eat  and  drink  and  make  merry,  for  to-morrow 
you  die.  Not  precisely  that  these  pleasures  were  recom 
mended  for  their  own  sakes,  but  that  through  them  might  be 
attained  the  coveted  state  of  interior  tranquillity  and  satisfac 
tion  wherein  the  Epicureans  placed  man's  greatest  and  only 
happiness. 

The  Stoic  school,  of  which  Seneca,  Epictetus,  and  Marcus 
Aurelius  were  the  best  Roman  representatives,  spread  at  first 
more  slowly,  but  in  the  end  outlived  Epicureanism.  Essen 
tially  materialistic  in  its  views,  it  was  destructive  of  all  true 
concepts  of  the  deity  and  of  the  personal  immortality  of  the 
soul ;  and  in  so  far  it  had,  like  its  earlier  rival,  a  demoralizing 
influence  on  religion.  But  on  the  other  hand,  its  ethics  were 
singularly  sane,  approaching  in  outward  expression  very 
closely  to  the  Christian  code  of  moral  conduct.  The  chief 
drawbacks  of  this  ethical  teaching  were  that  it  eliminated  all 
notions  of  an  overruling  Providence,  made  everything  depend 
on  blind  fate,  and  inevitably  led  to  an  intolerable  self-suffi 
ciency  in  the  practice  of  virtue.  As  Seneca  worded  it,  the 
truly  virtuous  man  is  the  equal  of,  nay  even  superior  to  the 
deity ;  because  the  deity  is  virtuous  of  his  very  nature,  whereas 
man  can  become  so  only  through  his  personal  endeavor. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era 
there  sprang  up  by  the  side  of  Stoicism,  and  gradually  ab 
sorbed  it,  a  new  school  in  which  Platonic  and  Pythagorean 
doctrines  were  blended.  It  borrowed  from  Plato  the  idea  of 
one  supreme,  infinitely  perfect,  and  independent  God,  the 


THE  GENTILE  WORLD  n 

pre-existence  of  human  souls,  and  the  creation  of  the  world 
from  a  primitive  hyle ;  whilst  from  Pythagoras  it  adopted  the 
doctrine  of  the  transmigration  of  souls,  which  led  to  absten 
tion  from  animal  food  and  to  certain  ascetical  practices. 
There  was,  moreover,  in  this  new  philosophy  a  marked  ten 
dency  towards  dualism,  in  as  much  as  it  more  or  less  tacitly 
assumed  the  existence  of  an  evil  principle  as  the  ultimate  cause 
of  the  many  evils  that  disfigure  the  world.  A  further  though 
indirect  development  of  this  philosophical  system  resulted  in 
the  Neoplatonism  of  Porphyry  and  Plotinus,  which  combined 
Greek  philosophic  thought  with  Oriental  mysticism. 

2°.  Greek  Religious  Views:  Greek  Gods:  Greek  Philoso 
phy  and  its  Influence  on  Religion.— Of  the  Greeks  F.  Cumont 
remarks :  "  There  never  was  so  cultured  a  people  who  had  so 
childish  a  religion."  In  a  certain  sense,  religion  entered  into 
every  relation  and  manifestation  of  Greek  social  and  private 
life,  but,  with  the  exception  of  some  of  their  "  mysteries,'* 
it  was  a  mere  dry  formalism,  a  promiscuous  collection  of 
empty  rites,  devoid  of  all  spiritual  meaning  for  the  people. 
There  were  sacrifices,  ablutions,  lustrations,  divinations,  ad 
jurations,  and  prayers;  yet  whatever  seriously  religious  sug 
gestion  might  be  contained  therein,  its  effects  upon  the  soul 
were  inevitably  counteracted  by  the  trivially  human  conception 
of  the  gods.  There  was  room  for  tragedy  or  comedy,  as  the 
occasion  demanded;  but  real  religious  worship  seemed 
strangely  out  of  place. 

The  Greek  gods,  like  those  of  the  Romans,  were  personifi 
cations  of  nature-powers,  but  of  a  wholly  anthropomorphitic 
character.  Like  men  they  are  born,  eat  and  drink,  have  their 
love  affairs,  reproduce  their  kind,  and  are  themselves  subject 
to  fate.  They  have  their  quarrels,  their  intrigues ;  are  swayed 
by  hatred  and  envy,  and  stoop  to  all  manner  of  human  crimes. 
They  are  simply  men  and  women  of  larger  mould  and  fairer 
form,  of  stronger  passions  and  endowed  with  immortality. 
This  clothing  of  the  gods  in  human  garb  was  the  work  of 
poets.  From  Homer  downwards,  each  wooer  of  the  Muses 
wove  around  his  country's  gods  a  network  of  myths  and  fables 
that  were  partly  the  heirloom  of  preceding  generations  and 


12  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

partly  the  offspring  of  his  own  poetic  fancy.  They  created 
their  gods  to  suit  the  requirements  of  their  theme,  put  at  their 
service  troops  of  daimones,  and  ended  up  by  conferring  divine 
honors  on  the  dead  heroes  of  the  past  and  the  living  despots 
of  the  present. 

How  detrimental  an  influence  this  view  of  the  gods  exer 
cised  upon  morality  need  not  be  pointed  out  in  detail.  The 
Greeks  had  indeed  a  high  sense  of  the  beautiful,  but,  this  not 
withstanding,  they  were  a  most  sensual  people.  Hence  as  they 
had  in  their  gods  a  warrant  for  all  that  appealed  to  their  sen 
suality,  they  never  once  thought  of  blushing  for  their  carnal 
excesses.  Phallus-worship,  religious  prostitution,  paederastia, 
and  id  genus  omne,  were  supposed  to  be  acceptable  to  the  gods. 
Especially  towards  the  end  of  Greek  independence,  when  Ori 
ental  influences  were  strongly  felt,  worship  became  orgiastic, 
and  courtesans'  statues  were  erected  in  several  temples  to  rep 
resent  Olympian  goddesses.  The  rest  may  be  imagined. 

Unlike  their  later  Roman  conquerors,  the  Greeks  were'  an 
intensely  intellectual  people,  and  from  their  very  first  appear 
ance  in  history,  literature,  both  light  and  serious,  played  an 
important  part  in  the  nation's  life.  In  the  matter  of  religion 
and  worship,  however,  poetry  and  philosophy  were  in  the  main 
mutually  antagonistic.  Poetry  created  the  gods,  whilst  phi 
losophy  annihilated  them.  Not  that  Greek  philosophy  was 
atheistic,  but  nearly  all  of  its  representatives  threw  discredit 
on  the  gods  of  mythology  and  reasoned  to  the  existence  of  one 
supreme  being  which  alone  could  lay  claim  to  divinity.  With 
the  Ionian  philosophers  and  the  Stoics  this  supreme  being  was 
of  a  material  nature  —  fire  or  ether;  but  Socrates,  Plato,  and 
Aristotle  conceived  it  to  be  a  spiritual  substance,  in  one  way 
or  another  the  ultimate  source  of  all  those  nature-powers  which 
the  common  people  worshiped  as  gods.  Socrates  spoke  of  this 
being  as  a  Provident  Ruler  of  the  world,  Plato  regarded  it  as 
the  Supreme  Good,  and  Aristotle  made  of  it  the  Prime  Mover 
of  the  universe.  Theirs  was  not  exactly  a  Christian  concept  of 
God,  but  rather  a  preparation  for  it. 

This  attitude  of  the  philosophers  was  not  without  its  effect 
on  the  educated  classes.  They  lost  their  respect  for  the  na- 


THE  GENTILE  WORLD  13 

tional  gods,  without  being  able  to  rise  to  the  height  of  a  mono 
theistic  creed.  The  result  was  largely  religious  skepticism  and 
neglect  of  the  traditional  forms  of  worship.  Thus  the  way 
was  opened,  not  directly  for  Christianity,  but  for  the  mystic 
cults  of  the  East,  which  tended  to  a  vague  syncretism  in  reli 
gion  and  to  a  terrible  degradation  in  morals. 

3°.  Oriental  Religious  Views:  Oriental  Gods:  Oriental  Mys 
ticism  in  Western  Lands. — The  Oriental  mind  is  deeply  reli 
gious,  in  so  far  at  least  as  it  acknowledges  a  far-reaching  de 
pendence  on  the  divinity,  has  a  keen  realization  of  human  sin- 
fulness,  evinces  a  strong  bias  towards  the  mystic  and  occult  and 
shows  a  great  readiness  to  sacrifice  whatever  is  most  dear  to  the 
gods  and  their  clients.  Hence  in  all  the  various  forms  of  Ori 
ental  religions,  there  is  an  appeal,  not  to  the  senses  only,  as  was 
the  case  in  Rome  and  Greece,  but  to  the  heart  as  well,  although 
that  appeal  not  rarely  led  to  the  most  shameful  excesses. 

Generally  speaking,  the  chief  gods  of  the  East,  including 
Egypt,  were  personifications  of  nature's  productive  powers. 
Baal  of  the  Syro-Phoenicians,  Bel  of  the  Babylonians,  Osiris 
of  the  Egyptians,  represented  the  personified  male  principle 
of  reproduction,  to  which  corresponded  respectively  Astarte, 
Ishtar,  and  Isis,  as  the  personified  female  principle.  The  wor 
ship  of  these  gods  and  goddesses  consisted  primarily  in  sac 
rifices  connected  with  the  production  of  life.  Sometimes  little 
children  were  immolated,  while  on  other  occasions  the 
sacrificial  rite  consisted  in  religious  prostitution,  emasculation, 
and  even  in  bestiality.  Secondarily,  religious  worship  took  the 
shape  of  mystic  rites,  in  which  magic  played  a  principal  part. 
In  some  countries,  as  Persia,  the  gods  were  concretized  in 
the  heavenly  bodies,  as  the  sun  and  the  moon;  in  others,  as 
Egypt,  they  assumed  concrete  form  in  certain  animals,  as 
the  sacred  bull  and  the  he-goat.  But  everywhere  they  were 
titanic  in  their  power  over  the  human  mind,  and  usually  dia 
bolical  in  their  influence  on  human  morals.3 

3  Of  all  pagan   religions  that  of  ly   through    Western    lands    during 

Persia    was    the    purest    and    ap-  the  second  and  third  centuries  of  our 

proached    most    closely    to    mono-  era.     Cfr.  Fr.  Cumont,  The  Myster- 

theism.     Persia  was  also  the  home  ies  of  Mithra ;  Lectures  on  the  His- 

of  Mithraism,  which  spread  so  wide-  tory  of  Religions,  II,  Mithra. 


I4  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

These  mystic  rites  of  the  East,  and  partly  also  its  sacri 
ficial  worship,  swept  over  both  Greece  and  Rome  shortly  before 
the  establishment  of  the  Empire.  The  result,  as  already  indi 
cated,  was  disastrous  both  to  religion  and  to  morals.  Gods 
of  the  most  diverse  nationalities  and  characteristics  were  placed 
side  by  side  in  the  same  Pantheon,  and  those  religious  rites 
were  in  highest  favor  which  made  the  strongest  appeal  to 
the  beast  in  man.  Augustus  made  a  desperate  effort  to  revive, 
at  least  for  State  purposes,  the  religious  rites  of  ancient  Rome, 
but  he  met  with  only  partial  success.  The  last  attempt  of 
paganism  spent  itself  in  placing  the  Emperor  of  Rome  among 
the  deities  to  be  worshiped  by  every  loyal  subject  of  the  Em 
pire.  Pan  was  dead  indeed,  and  man  usurped  the  place  of 
the  gods. 

4°.  Final  Results. — From  the  interaction  of  these  various 
causes,  and  of  some  others  not  mentioned  here,  there  resulted 
a  state  of  religious  doubt,  moral  degradation,  and  spiritual 
helplessness,  that  was  as  universal  as  it  was  unique.  Many 
even  of  the  common  people  no  longer  believed  in  their  ancient 
gods,  or,  still  believing,  only  learned  from  them  to  follow 
freely  the  promptings  of  their  corrupt  nature.  Yet  through 
it  all  there  was  felt  the  craving  for  something  stable  and  cer 
tain,  for  something  that  would  fill  the  void  of  men's  hearts 
during  life  and  throw  a  gleam  of  light  into  the  darkness 
beyond  the  tomb.  Originally  people  had  believed  in  a  just 
retribution  after  death,  but  this  belief  was  now  shaken  by  the 
dogmatizing  of  materialistic  philosophers.  What,  then,  could 
life  mean?  And  to  what  must  it  lead?  Was  there  really 
one  true  God  beyond  the  promiscuous  Pantheon  of  their  dis 
credited  deities,  on  whom  nature  depended  for  its  existence 
and  who  governed  all  things  according  to  His  own  wise  ways  ? 
Was  all  the  misery  of  the  world  perhaps  but  the  result  of 
men's  misdeeds?  Could  all  this  be  changed  by  a  change  of 
life?  Whence  might  help  be  expected? 

5°.  Supposed  Dangers  to  the  New  Teaching. — What  were 
the  obstacles  and  helps  thus  awaiting  the  advent  and  spread 
of  Christianity  is  a  matter  that  belongs  to  Church  History. 
For  the  student  of  the  History  of  Dogmas  it  is  sufficient  to 


THE  GENTILE  WORLD  15 

ascertain  what  there  was  in  contemporary  paganism  that  was 
likely  to  corrupt  the  message  of  Christ.  This,  according  to 
Harnack,  and  perhaps  the  majority  of  non-Catholic  modern 
writers  on  the  subject,  may  be  reduced  to  the  following  points. 

1.  The  existence  of  a  mighty  empire,  in  which  the  whole 
governing  power  was  concentrated  in  the  hands  of  a  single 
individual,  yet  exercised  through  a  marvelously  organized  sys 
tem  of  subordinate  officials,  was  a  powerful  temptation  to 
essay  the  establishment  of  a  similar  empire  in  spiritual  matters, 
whether  the  ultimate  realization  of  this  lay  in  the  plans  of 
Christ  or  not. 

2.  The  existence  of  a  mediatorial  priesthood,  whose  mem 
bers  alone  claimed  the  right  of  immediate  access  to  the  deity, 
was  an  equally  powerful  temptation  to  interpose  a  similar 
priesthood  between  individual  Christians  and  their  God. 

3.  The  fact  that  the  Romans  had  a  preeminently  legal  mind, 
and  that  the  subjects  of  the  Empire  had  gradually  become 
accustomed  to  regard  the  law  as  supreme  in  all  things,  brought 
with  it  the  danger  that  the  Evangel  of  Christ  would  finally 
develop  into  a   legal  system,   which  would  place  upon   the 
Saviour's  followers  a  yoke  as  unbearable  as  the  one  under 
which  the  Jews  had  groaned  in  the  days  of  old. 

4.  The  wide-spread  custom  of  apotheosis  and  hero-worship 
would  naturally  tend  to  introduce  similar  practices  among  the 
Christians  in  regard  to  the  men  and  women  who  had  deserved 
well  of  the  faith.     Hence  the  Cultus  Sanctorum,  which  was 
unknown  to  the  children  of  Israel. 

5.  The  "mysteries"  of  the  Greeks  and  the  mystic  rites  of 
the  Orient  would  point  the  way  to  the  development  of  a 
sacramental  system,  in  which  mystery  and  magic  would  make 
their  appeal  to  the  minds  and  hearts  of  Christian  worshipers. 

6.  The  widely  accepted  view  of  the  intrinsically  evil  nature 
of  matter,  especially  among  the  Orientals,  would  open  the  way 
to  encratism  and  a  false  asceticism. 

7.  The  low  tone  of  pagan  morality,  particularly  in  carnal 
matters,  would  either  be  admitted  into  Christian  practice  and 
thus  frustrate  the  reforming  efforts  of  the  Saviour,  or  else 
lead  to  extreme  views  and  attempts  in  the  opposite  direction. 


16  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

8.  Pagan  polytheism,  and  the  accepted  belief  that  the  gods 
appeared  at  times  in  human  form,  would  exert  a  strong  influ 
ence  on  the  interpretation  of  Christ's  oft-repeated  statement 
that  God  was  His  Father. 

9.  Lastly,  and  this  was  the  greatest  danger  of  all,  as  the 
whole  Empire  was  more  or  less  under  the  influence  of  Greek 
culture   and    Greek    thought,    philosophic    speculation    would 
incontinently  busy  itself  with  Christ  and  His  sayings,  and 
then  almost  inevitably  tend  towards  reducing  His  message  of 
salvation  to  a  body  of  doctrines  that  might  easily  admit  a 
large  admixture  of  human  elements.4 

That  these  so-called  dangers,  made  so  much  of  by  Harnack 
and  his  school,  are,  as  "  dangers/'  purely  imaginary,  need 
hardly  be  pointed  out.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  all  the  points 
enumerated  above  —  the  existence  of  a  mighty  empire  and 
of  a  mediatorial  priesthood,  the  legal  mind  of  the  Romans 
and  the  acknowledged  supremacy  of  the  law,  the  custom  of 
apotheosis  and  hero-worship,  and  so  on  even  down  to  the 
prevailing  influence  of  Greek  culture  and  Greek  thought  — 
are  so  many  historical  facts ;  but  that  these  facts  "  almost  inevi 
tably  tended  "  to  corrupt  the  message  of  Christ,  or  actually 
did  corrupt  it,  can  be  asserted  only  by  one  who  totally  mis 
understands  both  the  message  and  the  person  of  the  Saviour. 
And  it  is  precisely  because  of  such  a  misunderstanding  that 
these  writers  draw  from  the  undoubted  facts  of  history  infer 
ences  which  are  wholly  unwarranted.  Hence  what  are  merely 
concomitant  facts  are  represented  by  them  as  principles  of  a 
corrupting  influence  on  the  message  of  Christ. 

Thus  Harnack  and  his  followers  assume  that  Jesus  was 
purely  human  and  that  His  sole  message  to  the  world  was 
the  realization  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  and  the  Brotherhood 
of  Man.  Hence,  they  infer,  He  did  not  contemplate  the  estab 
lishment  of  a  world-wide  Church,  with  a  consecrated  priest 
hood,  an  hierarchical  government,  sacramental  means  of  grace, 
and  full  authority  to  bind  and  to  loosen,  to  teach  and  to 
guide,  assured  of  God's  unfailing  assistance  even  to  the  con 
summation  of  the  world.  Consequently  if  a  Church  did  spring 

4  Cfr.  Harnack,  Dogmengeschichte,  I,  146  sqq.  4th  Germ.  edit. 


THE  GENTILE  WORLD  17 

into  being,  her  origin  was  purely  human;  and  like  all  other 
purely  human  institutions,  she  necessarily  borrowed  the  funda 
mental  elements  of  her  internal  organization,  and  to  some 
extent  also  the  means  of  attaining  her  social  aims,  from  the 
society  in  the  midst  of  which  she  first  saw  the  light  of  day 
and  then  gradually  developed  into  perfect  form.  As  a  Chris 
tian  Church  she  would,  of  course,  make  the  message  of  Christ 
her  message,  but  in  proclaiming  that  message  to  the  world 
she  would  infuse  into  it  her  own  spirit  and  interpret  it  in 
accordance  with  her  own  views;  and  because  of  her  origin, 
her  spirit  was  but  human  and  her  views  were  fallible.  Hence 
the  danger;  hence,  too,  the  actual  corruption  of  Christ's  mes 
sage  to  the  world. 

Granting  the  assumption,  all  this  looks  very  plausible.  If 
Christ  had  been  only  human,  though  the  wisest  and  saintliest 
of  men;  and  if  the  Church  had  been  merely  human  in  her 
origin,  though  born  of  an  unselfish  desire  to  save  the  world; 
things  might  well  have  worked  out  as  here  indicated,  although 
the  Church  herself  would  long  since  have  ceased  to  exist. 
But  then  the  assumption  is  absolutely  false,  as  will  be  shown 
in  the  following  chapters ;  and  upon  a  false  assumption  only 
an  untenable  theory  can  be  built. 


CHAPTER  II 
ISRAEL  AND  ITS   RELATION   TO   CHRISTIANITY  1 

That  the  Jewish  people,  under  the  special  guidance  of  Jahve, 
were  in  some  way  instrumental  in  preparing  the  world  for  the 
advent  of  the  Saviour  is  admitted  by  all  Christians.  Not 
only  was  this  chosen  nation  made  the  depository  of  a  revela 
tion  that  was  to  form  an  integral  part  of  the  depositum  fidei 
of  Christian  times,  but  by  its  providential  contact  with  the 
Gentile  world  it  did  much  to  dispose  the  minds  of  pagan  peo 
ples  for  the  reception  of  the  Saviour's  message  when  the 
fullness  of  time  had  come.  This  latter  preparation  had  its 
beginning  as  far  back  as  the  sixth  century  before  Christ,  when 
the  Jews  of  Palestine  passed  under  the  domination  of  Persia, 
and  later  on  under  that  of  Greece  and  Rome.  Until  the  Cap 
tivity  they  had  been  almost  exclusively  engaged  in  agriculture, 
and  thus  led  an  isolated  existence ;  but  in  their  subsequent  long 
and  intimate  contact  with  enterprising  strangers,  they  ac 
quired  a  taste  for  trade,  which  soon  caused  them  to  spread 
far  beyond  the  borders  of  their  own  small  country.  They 
gradually  established  themselves  in  the  numerous  commercial 
cities  where  Greek  was  spoken  —  in  all  the  ports  of  Western 
Asia,  along  the  coast  of  Africa,  and  even  in  Rome. 

This  led  to  the  formation  of  two  distinct  groups  of  one  and 
the  same  people:  the  Jews  of  Palestine,  who  continued  to 
dwell  in  the  land  of  their  ancestors  and  were  immediately 
connected  with  Jerusalem  and  the  Temple;  and  the  Jews  of 
the  Diaspora  or  the  Dispersion,  who  fixed  their  homes  perma 
nently  in  Gentile  lands.  Although  they  remained  ever  closely 

1  Cfr.     Doellinger,    op.     cit.     II ;      tindale,   op.   cit.  Ill ;   Felten,   Neu- 
*  Schuerer,   History  of  the  Jewish      testamentliche  Zeitgeschichte ;  Tixe- 
People    at    the    Time    of    Christ;      ront,  H.  D.  I,  20-59. 
*Drummond,   Philo   Tudseus;   Mar- 

18 


ISRAEL  AND  CHRISTIANITY  ig 

united  in  national  consciousness,  in  religious  aspirations  and 
mutual  interest  in  each  other's  varying  fortunes,  nevertheless 
in  course  of  time  they  developed  traits  and  views  that  were 
in  some  respects  quite  dissimilar.  Hence  a  few  remarks  on 
each  of  these  two  groups  will  be  in  place. 

A  —  THE  PALESTINIAN  JEWS:  THEIR  MESSIANIC  HOPES 

The  rule  of  the  Persians,  which  extended  from  537  to  330 
B.  c.,  was,  all  things  considered,  extremely  mild,  and  placed 
no  obstacles  in  the  way  of  religious  and  national  development. 
Some  influence  was  indeed  exerted  on  Jewish  teaching,  espe 
cially  in  the  domains  of  angelology,  demonology,  and  escha- 
tology,  but  this  was  by  way  of  quickening  development  rather 
than  by  the  absorption  and  incorporation  of  foreign  doctrines. 
Thus,  although  the  scepter  had  in  a  manner  passed  from 
Judah,  Jewish  national  and  religious  life  remained  practically 
intact. 

Matters  assumed  quite  a  different  aspect  during  the  period 
of  Greek  domination.  In  330  Alexander  the  Great  did  homage 
to  the  high  priest  Onias,  conquered  Persia  and  all  the  neigh 
boring  countries,  and  then  subjected  the  Jews  to  Greek  rule. 
Thenceforth  a  strong  Hellenizing  influence  was  brought  to 
bear  upon  Jewish  customs  and  manner  of  life.  This  reached 
its  climax  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  who,  in  170,  attempted 
the  extirpation  of  the  Jewish  religion  and  the  conversion  of 
the  Temple  at  Jerusalem  into  a  sanctuary  of  Jupiter  Olympus. 
The  attempt  failed  of  its  purpose,  yet  many  there  were  who 
from  that  time  on  followed  the  ways  of  the  Greeks. 

Shortly  after  ensued  the  fierce  struggle  for  liberty  under 
the  leadership  of  the  Maccabees,  the  Asmonean  high  priests, 
which  resulted  in  a  quasi-independence  that  lasted  for  about 
a  hundred  years.  After  that  time,  in  a  fratricidal  conflict 
between  Aristobulus  and  Hyrcanus  II,  an  appeal  was  made  to 
Rome,  whereupon  Pompey  marched  with  his  legions  into 
Palestine,  took  Jerusalem  in  63,  and  established  Roman  supre 
macy  throughout  the  land.  Then,  by  favor  of  Rome,  Herod 
the  Idumean  was  made  king.  He  oppressed  the  Jews  for  37 
years,  rebuilt  the  Temple  in  a  most  magnificent  style,  made 


20  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

and  unmade  high  priests  at  will,  murdered  every  one  in  whom 
he  suspected  the  slightest  opposition,  tried  all  possible  schemes 
to  Hellenize  the  people,  and  left  the  country  in  a  ruinous 
state  to  his  sons.  A  few  years  later  Rome  appointed  a  pro 
curator,  who  governed  Palestine  as  a  Roman  province. 

These  various  political  disturbances,  and  more  especially 
the  accompanying  religious  oppressions,  wrought  a  profound 
change  in  the  life  of  the  people.  Early  in  the  third  century 
before  Christ,  when  the  Greeks  endeavored  to  exercise  a  far- 
reaching  influence  on  Judaism,  three  different  parties  were 
formed  that  remained  in  existence  till  the  destruction  of  the 
nation.  The  first  of  these  was  that  of  the  Pharisees,  including 
all  lovers  of  the  Law,  and  therefore  the  bulk  of  the  people. 
Prominent  in  this  party  were  the  scribes,  who  since  the  Cap 
tivity  had  become  the  authorized  expounders  of  the  Law.  To 
it  also  belonged  those  priests  who  were  not  mere  tools  in 
the  hands  of  the  ruling  power.  Because  of  their  great  zeal 
for  the  Law,  these  Pharisees  and  scribes  erected  around  it 
a  "  gader  "  or  hedge,  consisting  of  traditions  and  interpreta 
tions  which  in  course  of  time  were  regarded  as  binding  as 
the  Law  itself.  It  was  chiefly  these  "  traditions  of  men " 
that  made  the  Law  so  burdensome,  and  later  on  caused  the 
name  of  Pharisee  to  stand  for  a  mere  outward  show  of  right 
eousness.  Hence  Christ's  terrible  denunciation  of  them  as 
recorded  in  the  Gospel.  Sprung  from  a  legitimate  zeal  for 
the  Law,  the  party  ended  by  betraying  the  Law  to  its  own 
private  interests. 

The  second  party  was  that  of  the  Sadducees,  the  reputed 
disciples  of  Sadok  (291-260),  who  adopted  the  principles  of 
the  Hellenists.  They  repudiated  the  traditions  of  the  Phari 
sees,  disregarded  the  "  gader,"  and  appealed  almost  exclusively 
to  the  Thora,  without,  however,  rejecting  the  other  books  of 
the  Old  Testament.  In  philosophy,  although  admitting  the 
creation  of  the  world  in  the  accepted  Jewish  sense,  they  were 
followers  of  Epicurus,  denying  God's  continuous  operation  in 
the  universe,  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead,  and  the  existence  of  angels.  Yet  in  spite  of  this, 
they  took  part  in  the  services  and  sacrifices  of  the  Temple, 


ISRAEL  AND  CHRISTIANITY  21 

practiced  circumcision,  observed  the  Sabbath,  and  wished  to  be 
considered  as  real  Jews.  In  social  life,  however,  they  con 
ducted  themselves  as  Greeks. 

The  third  party,  numerically  insignificant,  was  that  of  the 
Essenes,  a  body  of  ascetics,  who  based  their  asceticism  partly 
on  Judaism  and  partly  on  Greek  philosophy.  They  clung 
tenaciously  to  the  Mosaic  Law,  but  at  the  same  time  admitted 
many  non- Jewish  elements  in  their  religious  practices  and 
beliefs.  In  some  respects  there  is  a  close  resemblance  between 
their  mode  of  life  and  that  of  early  Christian  ascetics,  but 
no  genetic  relation  can  be  shown  to  exist. 

There  is  no  particular  need  of  reviewing  here  the  theo 
logical  doctrines  of  the  Palestinian  Jews,  as  we  find  them 
practically  all  reproduced  in  the  Gospels  and  in  the  preaching 
of  the  Apostles.  Still  a  brief  outline  seems  to  be  in  place. 
The  following  points  will  be  sufficient  for  our  purpose. 

i°.  God:  The  Blessed  Trinity. — Although  the  Jews,  in  spite 
of  the  prohibition  of  the  law,  came  in  frequent  contact  with 
idolaters  and  on  divers  occasions  many  individuals  yielded  to 
the  fascination  of  foreign  cults,  nevertheless  as  a  nation  they 
were  strict  monotheists.  From  the  first  page  of  the  Old 
Testament  to  the  last,  Elohim,  or  Jahve,  is  consistently  repre 
sented  as  the  one  and  only  God.  And  the  same  teaching  is 
also  found  in  later  apocryphal  writings.  Nor  is  He  considered 
merely  as  a  national  deity,  but  as  the  one  true  God  of  all 
men  and  the  whole  world ;  although  for  providential  reasons 
He  made  the  children  of  Israel  His  own  special  people.  The 
pagan  gods  are  spoken  of  as  Elilim  (worthless),  or  as  demons, 
who  are  no  gods  at  all,  but  are  foolishly  worshiped  as  such 
by  the  wicked.  Some  day  Jahve  will  bring  back  the  Gentiles 
to  His  service.  The  existence  of  this  one  God  is  nowhere 
proved  in  the  Sacred  Writings;  it  is  assumed  as  evident,  and 
only  "  the  fool  saith  in  his  heart  there  is  no  God." 

God  is  a  spirit,  whom  no  man  can  see  and  live.  He  is 
being  itself ;  without  beginning  and  without  end,  unchangeable 
alike  in  perfection  and  counsel.  He  knows  all  things,  and 
nothing  is  hidden  from  His  eyes.  He  fills  all  things  and 
all  space  with  His  presence,  and  of  His  wisdom,  justice,  and 


22  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

mercy  there  is  no  end.  All  these  attributes,  however,  are 
usually  spoken  of  in  a  concrete  way,  to  suit  the  understanding 
of  a  simple  people.  Anthropomorphisms  and  plural  designa 
tions  occur  rather  frequently ;  but  the  context,  either  proximate 
or  remote,  contains  its  own  corrective. 

The  mystery  of  the  Blessed  Trinity  is  not  explicitly  taught 
in  the  Old  Testament,  but  allusions  to  it  are  found  in  not  a 
few  texts.  The  expression  in  Genesis,  "  Let  us  make  man  to 
our  image  and  likeness:  .  .  .  and  God  created  man  to  his 
image :  to  the  image  of  God  he  created  him,"  may  be  said 
to  be  an  implicit  statement  of  the  Trinitarian  doctrine  as 
understood  in  Christian  times.  The  plurality  of  divine  per 
sons  is  rather  clearly  taught  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs  and 
Ecclesiasticus,  where  Wisdom  is  represented  as  a  distinct 
hypostasis.  But  whether  the  Jews  realized  the  full  import 
of  these  texts  is  not  so  certain.  The  doctrine  implied  in  these 
and  similar  passages  becomes  clear  only  when  the  Old  Testa 
ment  is  read  in  the  light  shed  upon  it  by  the  New.  To  this 
as  to  many  other  Christian  doctrines  contained  in  the  Old 
Testament  is  applicable  the  saying  of  St.  Augustine :  "  In 
Vetere  Novum  latet,  et  in  Novo  Vetus  patet." 

2°.  God's  Relation  to  the  World. — By  an  act  of  His  omnip 
otent  will,  Jahve  drew  all  things  out  of  nothingness;  and 
He  can  again  reduce  them  all  to  nothingness  by  withdrawing 
His  sustaining  power.  He  holds  the  world  in  the  hollow 
of  His  hand.  Yet  He  is  a  good  and  wise  Providence,  who 
loves  His  creatures  and  fills  them  all  with  blessings.  "  Good 
things  and  evil,  life  and  death,  poverty  and  riches,  are  from 
God."  Creatures  are  an  outward  expression  of  His  goodness, 
yet  ultimately  they  must  all  serve  to  promote  His  glory;  be 
cause  He  has  made  them  for  Himself,  and  His  glory  He  will 
not  give  to  another. 

3°.  Angels  and  Men. — Good  and  bad  angels  appear  on  the 
very  first  pages  of  the  Bible;  for  Satan  under  the  appearance 
of  a  serpent  brought  about  man's  fall,  and  after  the  fall 
Cherubims  were  appointed  to  guard  the  gates  of  paradise. 
These  angels  are  everywhere  represented  as  spirits,  endowed 
with  intellect  and  free  will.  More  perfect  than  men,  they  are 


ISRAEL  AND  CHRISTIANITY  23 

nevertheless  created  beings,  although  their  creation  is  nowhere 
recorded  in  explicit  terms.  Their  fidelity  to  their  Maker  was 
subjected  to  a  trial,  and  some  of  them  proved  unfaithful. 
These  latter  appear  as  workers  of  evil.  The  good  angels  are 
the  messengers  of  God  and  the  bearers  of  His  commands  to 
men.  They  protect  both  individuals  and  nations,  whilst  the 
evil  spirits  seek  to  encompass  man's  ruin.  Only  a  few  of 
either  class  are  known  by  name;  but  of  the  good,  at  least, 
there  are  vast  multitudes.  For  "  thousands  of  thousands  min 
istered  to  Him,  and  ten  thousand  times  a  hundred  thousand 
stood  before  Him."  It  may  be  noted  in  passing,  that  there 
is  no  real  resemblance  between  these  angels,  as  represented 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  genii  and  daimones  of  pagan 
mythology;  though  many  critics  hold  that  Persian  angelology 
had  some  influence  on  the  later  development  of  Jewish  belief 
in  this  matter. 

After  the  angels,  in  the  order  of  natural  perfection,  man 
appears  as  the  noblest  of  God's  creatures.  He  was  made  to 
the  image  and  likeness  of  God.  His  body  was  formed  of  the 
slime  of  the  earth,  and  his  soul  was  "  breathed  into  his  face  " 
by  his  Maker.  He  is,  therefore,  made  up  of  two  distinct 
elements ;  a  material  body  and  a  spiritual  soul.  He  is  physi 
cally  free  to  choose  between  good  and  evil ;  but  he  is  morally 
bound  to  render  faithful  service  to  his  Creator.  In  perfec 
tion  he  is  a  little  less  than  the  angels. 

Between  him  and  God  exists  not  only  the  relation  of  servant 
and  Master,  but  also  of  child  and  Father.  This  latter  rela 
tion  is  not  brought  out  very  distinctly  in  the  Pentateuch,  but 
it  appears  quite  prominently  in  the  Psalms  and  the  Prophetical 
Books.  Man's  elevation  to  the  supernatural  state  is  only  im 
plied  in  most  of  the  texts  that  refer  to  his  primitive  condition, 
though  there  are  a  few  that  are  usually  interpreted  as  stating  it 
explicitly.  Originally  he  was  destined  for  temporal  and 
eternal  happiness,  but  both  were  made  dependent  on  his  fidelity 
to  God.  He  proved  unfaithful  and  lost  both.  However, 
owing  to  the  great  mercy  of  God,  his  eternal  happiness  was 
again  made  possible.  The  first  man's  fall  is  the  origin  of 
all  evil  in  the  world. 


24  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

Reinstated  in  God's  friendship,  in  view  of  the  merits  of  a 
future  Redeemer,  the  making  of  his  fortune  is  once  more 
placed  in  man's  own  hands.  A  terrible  conflict  between  his 
inclinations  to  good  and  evil  is  inevitable;  but  in  this  conflict 
God  is  on  his  side.  In  what  precisely  the  divine  assistance 
consists  is  not  clearly  stated;  yet  it  is  represented  as  enabling 
men  both  to  know,  to  will,  and  to  do  what  is  right,  and  thus 
to  become  holy  even  as  God  is  holy.  As  required  of  the 
chosen  people,  this  holiness  demands  both  legal  and  moral 
purity,  so  that  in  practice  it  is  identical  with  the  keeping  of 
the  ceremonial  and  the  moral  law.  For  the  Gentiles,  how 
ever,  the  moral  law  alone  is  of  obligation. 

Adam's  fall  and  the  subsequent  sin  fulness  of  all  men  stand 
out  prominently  in  the  various  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  they  give  a  distinct  coloring  to  later  apocryphal  litera 
ture.  Yet  with  all  this,  there  is  little  said  in  either  class  of 
writings  about  the  existence  and  transmission  of  original  sin. 
In  the  canonical  books  several  texts  are  pointed  out  by  theo 
logians,  and  also  by  some  of  the  Fathers,  as  containing  the 
doctrine;  but  others  interpret  these  texts  in  a  different  sense. 
Perhaps  the  clearest  reference  to  the  inheritance  of  a  moral 
stain  from  Adam  is  found  in  the  fourth  book  of  Esdras, 
where  we  read :  "  O  tu,  quid  f  ecisti,  Adam  ?  Si  enim  tu  pec- 
casti,  non  est  factus  solius  tuus  casus,  sed  et  noster  qui  ex  te 
advenimus  "  (7,48). 

Forgiveness  could  be  obtained  for  all  sins,  however  grievous 
and  many,  provided  the  sinner  was  truly  repentant  and  con 
fessed  his  sin  fulness  before  God.  But  even  in  the  case  of  true 
repentance,  and  consequent  forgiveness  of  sin,  temporal  chas 
tisement  was  not  rarely  inflicted  by  the  justice  of  Jahve. 
Under  certain  conditions,  moreover,  sin-offerings  were  re 
quired,  but  they  had  no  real  sacramental  efficacy.  It  was  the 
conversion  of  the  heart  that  counted  —  true  sorrow  for  sins 
and  a  firm  purpose  of  future  amendment. 

4°.  The  Law  of  Worship  Comprised  Two  Parts:  Sacrifices 
and  the  Sanctification  of  the  Sabbath. — Sacrifices  could  be 
offered  only  by  the  priests,  who  by  divine  ordination  were  of 


ISRAEL  AND  CHRISTIANITY  25 

the  family  of  Aaron.  They  were  presided  over  by  the  high 
priest,  whose  succession  to  office  was  by  heredity,  and  origi 
nally  he  could  be  removed  only  by  death  or  on  account  of 
some  great  crime.  In  the  preparation  of  the  victims  the  priests 
were  assisted  by  Levites.  Menial  offices  connected  with  the 
sacrificial  worship  were  performed  by  Temple  slaves.  After 
the  Temple  had  been  built,  sacrifices  could  be  offered  only  in 
Jerusalem.  The  beneficiaries  of  these  sacrifices  were,  accord 
ing  to  circumstances,  both  individuals  and  the  whole  nation. 
This  sacrificial  and  ceremonial  law,  however,  was  intended 
to  be  only  temporary;  after  the  advent  of  the  Messias  it  was 
to  be  replaced  by  a  more  spiritual  worship. 

The  sanctification  of  the  Sabbath  consisted  exclusively  in 
rest  from  unnecessary  work,  although  in  later  times  it  was 
customary  to  gather  in  the  synagogues,  where  portions  of  the 
Thora,  the  Prophets,  and  other  Holy  Books  were  read  aloud 
and  explained.  This  custom  seems  to  have  originated  with 
Esdras,  after  the  Captivity.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  homily 
the  people  were  dismissed  by  a  blessing  of  the  priest,  the 
congregation  answering,  Amen.  Here,  as  we  shall  see  later, 
we  have  the  type  of  Christian  worship  as  gathered  around  the 
sacrifice  of  the  New  Law. 

5°.  The  Family  Was  by  Divine  Institution  Monogamous, 
and  Divorce  a  vinculo  Was  Originally  Prohibited. — 'However, 
owing  to  their  "  hardness  of  heart,"  the  Jews  later  on  obtained 
a  dispensation  in  this  matter,  so  that  thereafter  a  man  could 
lawfully  have  several  wives  simultaneously,  and  for  anything 
"  shameful "  could  dismiss  one  or  all  of  them  by  giving  a 
"  libellus  repudii."  The  wife,  on  the  other  hand,  had  no 
right  of  divorce,  although  when  duly  dismissed  she  was 
allowed  to  marry  again. 

6°.  Eschatology. — The  Jewish  doctrine  concerning  the  final 
consummation  of  things  does  not  appear  very  clearly  defined. 
As  a  sanction  of  the  moral  law,  the  hereafter  plays  a  rather 
subordinate  part  in  both  canonical  and  apocryphal  writings. 
It  is  usually  rewards  and  punishments  during  the  present  life 
that  are  held  out  as  inducements  to  render  God  faithful  serv- 


26  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

ice;  yet  these  rewards  and  punishments  are  not  disconnected 
with,  and  exclusive  of,  a  continued  existence  beyond  the  tomb. 
The  following  points  will  make  this  clear. 

Death  and  judgment  are  consecutive,  so  that  one  follows 
immediately  upon  the  other;  for  "it  is  easy  before  God  in 
the  day  of  death  to  reward  every  one  according  to  his  works." 
That  this  was  also  the  popular  belief  is  necessarily  presup 
posed  in  Christ's  parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus.  Besides  the 
retribution  immediately  after  death,  there  is  to  be  a  general 
judgment  at  the  end  of  time,  which  will  inaugurate  each  one's 
eternal  condition.  In  Jewish  apocryphal  literature,  however, 
this  general  judgment  is  usually  brought  into  close  connection 
with  the  Messias'  reign  on  earth,  either  forming  its  begin 
ning  or  its  end.  It  shall  be  preceded  by  a  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  which  Daniel  and  Joel  represent  as  general,  but  which 
the  Apocryphas  limit  to  the  Jews  or  just  alone,  who  shall  have 
a  share  in  the  Messianic  reign. 

What  were  the  expected  conditions  of  the  great  hereafter 
is  somewhat  obscurely  expressed.  Judging  from  what  is  said 
in  the  Book  of  Henoch  and  IV  Esdras,  Jewish  belief  was 
that  there  would  be  a  temporal  happiness  or  misery  until  the 
final  sentence  of  the  Great  Judge.  In  the  Psalms,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  temporal  abode  of  the  dead  is  spoken  of  only 
in  a  general  way,  and  pictured  in  rather  dark  colors.  It  is 
a  still,  gloomy  spot,  apparently  in  the  bowels  of  the  earth, 
where  souls  are  indeed  at  rest  from  the  troubles  of  the  world 
above,  but  where  they  seem  to  lead  a  dull,  inactive,  and  com 
fortless  existence.  Job's  description  of  it  strikes  one  as  still 
more  terrible.  Of  course,  as  we  know  from  New  Testament 
teaching  that  even  the  just  could  not  enter  heaven  until  the 
ascension  of  the  Saviour,  this  gloomy  view  of  the  hereafter 
may  be  understood  as  bearing  reference  only  to  the  delay  of 
eternal  beatitude. 

At  the  last  judgment,  Daniel  tells  us,  "  some  shall  rise  unto 
life  everlasting,  and  others  unto  reproach,  to  see  it  always." 
And  Job  expects,  after  that  dark  intermediate  condition,  a 
happy  eternity :  for  "  I  know  that  my  Redeemer  liveth ;  He 
will  stand  as  the  last  one  on  the  dust  of  my  grave;  my  eyes 


ISRAEL  AND  CHRISTIANITY  27 

shall  behold  Him,  and  no  stranger."  The  same  is  also  the 
hope  of  the  Psalmist.  The  wicked,  on  the  other  hand,  shall 
be  cast  into  Gehenna,  where,  according  to  Isaias,  they  shall 
dwell  with  devouring  fire,  with  everlasting  burnings.  To 
purgatory  there  is  no  direct  reference,  save  only  in  II  Mac 
cabees,  where  it  is  stated  as  the  Jewish  belief  that  it  is  a 
holy  and  a  wholesome  thought  to  pray  for  the  dead,  that  they 
may  be  loosed  from  their  sins. 

After  this  general  outline  of  Old  Testament  teaching,  and 
of  current  Jewish  beliefs  as  gathered  from  apocryphal  writ 
ings,  it  seems  much  to  our  purpose  to  give  a  somewhat  more 
detailed  account  of  Israel's  Messianic  hope,  since  the  realiza 
tion  of  this  forms  the  very  central  point  of  the  Gospel  mes 
sage.  The  following  paragraphs  contain  a  fairly  complete 
though  brief  statement. 

Messianic  prophecies  are  found  scattered  through  the  whole 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  find  a  clear  echo  in  later  apocry 
phal  writings.  Beginning  with  the  rather  obscure  announce 
ment  of  a  future  Saviour  immediately  after  the  fall,2  these 
predictions  become  clearer  and  more  definite  as  time  passes 
on.  The  Messias  is  to  be  of  the  posterity  of  Abraham,3  of 
the  tribe  of  Judah,4  of  the  family  of  David.5  He  shall  be 
preceded  by  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  and  shall  glorify  the 
second  Temple.6  He  shall  be  of  virgin  birth,7  shall  be  born 
in  Bethlehem  of  Juda,8  sixty-nine  weeks  of  years  "  from  the 
going  forth  of  the  word,  to  build  up  Jerusalem  again,"  9  after 
the  scepter  has  passed  from  Judah.10  He  shall  be  Emanuel, 
God  with  us;  His  name  shall  be  called  Wonderful,  God  the 
Mighty,  Counselor,  Prince  of  Peace.11  He  shall  grow  up  as 
a  child  of  poverty  in  the  land  of  Galilee,12  shall  be  of  a  most 
lovable  character,  quiet  and  gentle,  the  friend  of  the  poor 
and  forsaken.13  He  shall  cause  the  blind  to  see,  the  dumb  to 

2  Gen.  3,  15.  8  Mich.  5,  2. 

3  Ibid.  12,  1-3 ;  21,  15-18.  9  Dan.  9,  21-25. 

4  Ibid.  49,  i-io.  10  Gen.  49,  i-io. 

5  I  Par.  17,  4,  10,  ii ;  II  Kings,  7,  1J  Is.  7,  14;  9,  6. 
13-16.  12Ibid.  9,  1,2;  53,  2. 

6  Mai.  3,  i ;  Agg.  2,  7-11.  13  Ibid.  42,  1-4. 
*  Is.  7,  14- 


28  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

speak  and  the  lame  to  walk.14  But  in  the  end  He  shall  be  dis 
owned  by  His  own  people,  betrayed  by  His  friend,  subjected  to 
untold  sufferings,  so  that  He  is  verily  a  worm  and  no  man.15 
In  the  middle  of  the  last  week  of  years,  He  shall  be  slain,  con 
firming  the  New  Covenant.  Then  great  tribulations  shall 
ensue,  the  sacrifice  of  the  Law  shall  fail,  and  a  people  with 
their  leaders  shall  come  to  destroy  the  city  and  the  sanctuary, 
and  in  the  Temple  there  shall  be  the  abomination  of  desola 
tion,  and  the  desolation  shall  continue  even  to  the  consum 
mation  and  the  end.16  But  His  sepulcher  shall  be  glorious.17 

He  shall  be  a  prophet  greater  than  Moses,18  a  priest  forever 
according  to  the  order  of  Melchisedech,19  a  king  who  shall 
sit  on  the  throne  of  David  and  rule  from  sea  to  sea,  and  of 
His  kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end.20  Yet  this  kingdom  shall 
be  of  a  spiritual  order,  to  be  established  on  Sion,  the  Holy 
Mount,  whither  the  Gentiles  shall  flock  from  all  parts  of  the 
world.21  In  it  there  shall  be  a  new  sacrifice,  a  clean  oblation, 
which  shall  be  offered  everywhere,  from  the  rising  of  the  sun 
to  the  going  down  thereof,  and  Jahve's  name  shall  be  great 
among  the  Gentiles.22  And  because  this  priest-king  shall  lay 
down  His  life  for  sin,  hence  He  shall  see  a  long-lived  seed, 
and  the  will  of  the  Lord  shall  be  prosperous  in  His  hand.23 

This  is  the  prophetic  view  of  the  Messias,  the  inspired 
teaching  of  the  Old  Testament;  but  with  this  the  popular 
view  only  partly  coincided.  The  people  were  at  all  times 
firmly  convinced  that  a  Messias  would  come,  yet  the  manner 
of  His  coming  and  the  work  He  was  to  accomplish  were  vari 
ously  colored  by  the  needs  and  hopes  of  each  particular  epoch. 
The  prophetic  predictions  were  scattered  over  a  vast  period 
of  time;  in  themselves  they  appeared  but  as  so  many  membra 
disjecta,  which,  taken  singly,  impressed  no  well  defined  pic 
ture  upon  the  popular  mind.  Hence  it  is  not  at  all  unintel 
ligible  that,  in  spite  of  the  prophetic  corrective,  the  long  train 

i*  Ibid.  42,  6,  7 ;  35,  5,  6.  "  Ps.  109,  4- 

15  Ibid.  53,  2-9.  20  Zach.  9,  9,  10. 

16  Dan.  9,  26,  27.  21  Ps.  2,  6-10. 

17  Is.  53,  9;  Ps.  15,  10.  22  Mai.  i,  n. 

18  Deut.  18,  15.  23  Is.  53,  10-12. 


ISRAEL  AND  CHRISTIANITY  29 

of  national  disasters  should  have  suggested  to  the  despairing 
Jews  the  hope  of  an  all-conquering  Messias,  who,  as  an  earthly 
king,  would  crush  the  enemies  of  the  chosen  people.  He  was 
to  be  David's  son;  the  father  had  been  the  most  powerful 
king  of  Israel's  glorious  past:  could  then  the  son  be  less? 
Was  it  not  Jerusalem  that  was  so  clearly  designated  as  the 
seat  of  His  rule  and  the  capital  of  His  kingdom,  where  His 
throne  was  to  be  erected,  and  whither  all  the  costly  offerings 
of  the  Gentiles,  their  silver  and  their  gold,  were  to  flow  to 
gether?  Hard  pressed  by  their  conquerors,  the  Jews  readily 
interpreted  these  prophetic  promises  in  a  purely  material  sense, 
and  the  natural  result  was  that  they  looked  forward  to  an 
earthly  ruler,  who  would  restore  the  golden  age  of  the  nation's 
past.  Should  He  come  in  any  other  form  or  guise,  they  would 
not  have  Him. 

However,  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  think  that  the  whole 
Jewish  nation  had  abandoned  the  prophetic  idea  of  a  spiritual 
Messias.  Many  there  still  were,  both  among  the  lowly  and 
the  high,  whose  expectations  found  adequate  expression  in 
the  "  Nunc  dimittis  "  of  the  holy  old  man  Simeon,  who  was 
privileged  to  press  the  Child  Jesus  to  his  faithful  heart  on  the 
occasion  of  the  Saviour's  presentation  in  the  Temple.  This 
appears  not  only  from  the  Gospels,  which  record  how  the 
people  were  always  ready  to  proclaim  Jesus  the  long  expected 
Messias,  in  spite  of  His  humble  and  lowly  appearance,  but 
also  from  the  apocryphal  writings  which  originated  in  the 
century  before  Christ.  In  them  the  Messianic  kingdom  is 
called  "  the  assembly  of  the  just,"  which  no  one  can  enter 
except  through  penance.24  The  sovereign  of  this  kingdom 
is  holy  and  sinless,  and  no  injustice  shall  be  found  in  his 
realm.25  Hence  the  constantly  repeated  prayer :  "  O  God, 
purify  Israel  on  the  day  of  healing  grace,  when  its  Anointed 
of  the  Lord  shall  come,"  and  when  "  a  good  generation  shall 
live  in  the  fear  of  God  and  in  the  works  of  justice."  26  Still 
this  realization  of  the  truth  gradually  disappeared  from  the 

24  Enoch,  38,  i.  ables   of  the   Gospel,   59-63;   Engl. 

25  Ps.  Sal.  17,  26,  41.  Transl.  by  E.  Leahy. 

26  Ibid.  18,  6.    Cf  r.  L.  Fonk,  Par- 


30  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

minds  of  those  who  directed  the  hopes  of  the  chosen  people, 
and  hence  when  Jesus  came  unto  His  own,  "  His  own  received 
Him  not." 

B — THE  JEWS  OF  THE  DISPERSION:  THEIR  RELIGIOUS  AND 
PHILOSOPHICAL  VIEWS 

The  Jews  of  the  Dispersion,  also  called  Hellenistic  Jews, 
remained  in  the  main  faithful  to  the  religious  teaching  of  the 
Old  Testament,  yet  their  close  contact  with  Greek  culture  and 
thought  led  them  in  many  instances  to  put  new  interpreta 
tions  upon  statements  of  the  Bible  which  they  had  theretofore 
accepted  in  a  literal  sense.  Many  of  them  came  gradually  to 
believe  that  Moses  and  the  Greek  philosophers  were  on  a  large 
number  of  points  in  substantial  agreement,  their  teaching  dif 
fering  chiefly  in  their  respective  viewpoints  and  in  the  termi 
nology  which  they  employed.  To  eliminate  even  this  differ 
ence,  and  to  arrive  at  a  more  perfect  understanding,  they  had 
recourse  to  an  allegorical  method  of  interpretation,  which  on 
the  one  hand  did  away  with  the  fabulous  mythology  of  the 
Greeks,  and  on  the  other  enriched  the  rather  meager  philosophy 
of  the  Jews.  It  was  this  allegorical  method  of  interpretation 
that  was  later  on  rendered  so  famous  by  the  Christian  scholars 
of  Alexandria. 

Whilst  treasuring  the  Sacred  Books  of  their  Palestinian 
home,  these  Hellenistic  Jews  gradually  developed  a  religious 
literature  of  their  own.  The  Greek  translation  of  the  LXX, 
the  Book  of  Wisdom,  the  Second  Book  of  Maccabees,  and 
some  deutero-canonical  additions  of  other  books,  originated  in 
their  midst.  So,  too,  did  the  apocryphal  Third  and  Fourth 
Book  of  Maccabees,  the  Letter  of  the  Pseudo-Aristeas,  the 
Sibyline  Oracles,  and  others.  The  fundamental  doctrines  of 
these  various  writings  are  generally  identical  with  those  con 
tained  in  the  Palestinian  Old  Testament,  yet  there  are  shades 
of  differences  that  point  to  Greek  influence.  Anthropomor 
phisms  are  usually  avoided  when  speaking  of  God,  the  per 
sonification  of  the  Word  is  very  marked,  Messianic  hopes  are 
brought  out  but  faintly,  and  much  space  is  given  to  the  con 
sideration  of  man's  condition  after  death. 


ISRAEL  AND  CHRISTIANITY  31 

The  one  who  tried  most  persistently  to  bring  Jewish  and 
Greek  thought  into  closer  relation  was  Philo,  at  once  a  believer 
and  a  philosopher.  Not  that  he  ultimately  succeeded  in  his 
purpose,  or  could  have;  but  along  certain  lines  his  influence 
was  felt  for  centuries,  even  in  Christian  circles.  The  principal 
Jewish  doctrines  on  which  he  stamped  his  philosophic  mark 
may  thus  be  summarized.27 

i°.  The  nature  of  God. — After  the  Platonic  fashion,  he 
looks  upon  God  as  wholly  transcendent,  of  whom  nothing 
definite  can  be  affirmed;  for  any  affirmation  places  a  limit  in 
the  Godhead,  and  is  of  its  very  nature  exclusive  of  other 
properties.  He  is  simply  WHO  is.  Although  He  is  eternal, 
immutable,  free;  yet  He  is  without  any  quality  or  property 
whatever.  He  is  so  transcendent  that  He  can  have  no  direct 
contact  with  finite  beings. 

2°.  Hence  to  explain  the  production  of  the  world,  Philo 
gathers  together  the  teaching  of  Plato  about  pre-existing  ideas, 
of  the  Stoics  about  the  world-soul,  of  the  Bible  about  the 
angels,  and  of  Greek  mythology  about  the  demons,  and  out  of 
these  heterogeneous  elements  he  constructs  what  may  be  called 
pre-existent  dynamic  ideas,  which  are  the  intermediaries  of 
God's  action  upon  the  world,  the  Logoi  through  which  He 
works.  Whether  or  not  these  Logoi  are  really  distinct  from 
God,  Philo  does  nowhere  clearly  state;  yet,  on  the  one  hand, 
they  must  be  distinct,  for  their  purpose  is  to  keep  God  from 
immediate  contact  with  the  world  and  to  save  Him  from  being 
the  author  of  evil;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  they  cannot  be 
distinct  from  God,  since  it  is  through  them  that  the  finite  is 
brought  into  contact  and  participation  with  the  infinite.  Hence 
logically,  these  dynamic  ideas  are  self -contradictory. 

And  so,  too,  seems  to  be  the  concept  of  the  Universal  Logos, 
of  which  these  dynamic  ideas  are  partial  or  limited  expres 
sions.  This  Universal  Logos  is  designated  as  God's  image, 
God's  shadow,  God's  first-born  son,  another  or  a  second  God. 

27  The     following     summary     of  dseus,    cc.    4,    5,    6,    vol.    II.     Cfr. 

Philo's   teaching   has   in   part  been  Feder,    Justins    Lehre    von    Jesus 

taken  from  Tixeront,  H.  D.  I,  49-54;  Christus,    137-143;    Felten,   op.   cit. 

and    from    Drummond's    Philo   Ju-  I,  564,  sqq.  II,  19  sqq. 


32  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

Yet  in  himself  he  is  but  the  sum  and  substance  or  rather  a 
combination  of  the  various  powers  through  which  God  acts 
upon  the  world,  and  therefore  merely  an  intermediary  between 
God  and  the  created  universe.  Hence  Philo  says  of  him  that 
he  is  neither  unbegotten  like  God,  nor  begotten  like  us,  but  in 
"  an  intermediary  way."  What  this  "  intermediary  way  "  is, 
Philo  does  not  know,  or  at  least  he  does  not  attempt  to  explain 
it,  and  so  the  whole  concept  seems  to  evanesce  because  of  its 
intrinsic  repugnance. 

In  this  connection  it  is  well  to  note  that  Philo  never  hints 
at  the  identity  of  this  Logos  with  the  Messias.  And  further 
more,  notwithstanding  such  designations  as  first-born  son  of 
God,  another  God,  this  Logos  does  not  appear  to  have  a  real 
concrete  personality,  but  to  be  simply  a  demiurgic  and  cosmic 
power,  wholly  alien  from  a  God  Revealer  and  Redeemer. 
Hence,  if  St.  John  borrowed  his  terminology  from  Philo,  which 
is  not  at  all  certain,  he  surely  did  not  go  to  him  for  the  con 
tents  of  his  doctrine. 

3°.  The  Work  of  Creation. — Although  Philo  bears  witness 
to  the  traditional  belief  in  a  creation  out  of  nothing,  he  him 
self  seems  to  have  followed  Plato  in  assuming  the  existence 
of  an  eternal  hyle,  the  source  of  all  imperfection  and  evil, 
which  God  reduced  to  order  by  the  agency  of  the  dynamic 
forces  indicated  above,  and  then  into  portions  of  it  He  intro 
duced  a  divine  element  as  the  source  of  physical  and  intellectual 
life,  according  to  the  nature  of  each  being. 

In  the  order  of  sequence  Philo  follows  more  or  less 
strictly  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation,  speaking  first  of  the 
angels,  which  in  his  treatment  very  closely  resemble  Plato's 
inferior  gods.  They  are  distributed  in  different  spheres,  one 
above  the  other.  The  highest  are  exclusively  occupied  with 
the  service  of  God ;  others,  nearer  the  earth,  have  united  them 
selves  to  bodies  and  become  the  souls  of  men.  Bad  angels,  or 
demons,  he  identifies  with  evil  souls. 

Man  is  made  up  of  three  elements :  the  intellect,  "  the  soul 
of  the  soul,"  which  comes  from  God ;  the  inferior  soul,  which 
is  propagated  by  generation;  and  the  body.  In  this  Philo 
teaches  trichotomy,  a  doctrine  that  later  on  appeared  some- 


ISRAEL  AND  CHRISTIANITY  33 

times  in  Christian  writers.  The  human  body,  being  made  up 
of  matter,  is  conceived  as  essentially  evil.  Its  mere  contact 
denies  the  soul.  Hence  man  is  of  his  very  nature  inclined 
to  moral  iniquity,  and  of  himself  he  is  powerless  against  the 
promptings  of  his  lower  instincts.  With  this,  however,  the 
author  nowhere  connects  the  idea  of  original  sin,  as  contracted 
in  the  fall  of  Adam. 

Because  man  is  thus  inclined  to  evil,  hence  there  is  need 
of  ascetical  practices,  that  he  may  be  enabled  to  lead  a  life 
of  virtue  and  become  acceptable  to  his  Maker.  Yet  these 
ascetical  practices  alone  do  not  suffice;  there  is  also  need  of 
philosophy  and  science,  in  the  sum  total  of  which  the  per 
fection  of  virtue  finally  consists.  There  is  a  certain  Stoic 
element  in  all  this,  yet  without  the  Stoics'  self-sufficiency  and 
pride;  for,  in  the  last  instance,  it  is  the  help  of  God  that  is 
man's  strength.  Thus  assisted  by  God,  and  making  proper 
use  of  contemplation,  we  may  realize  even  here  on  earth  a 
sort  of  intuitive  vision  of  God's  perfection,  which  is  the  final 
aim  of  all  true  philosophy. 

That  this  teaching  of  Judaism,  both  in  its  purer  form  as 
found  in  the  Palestinian  group  and  in  its  somewhat  modified 
contents  as  developed  among  the  Jews  of  the  Diaspora,  would 
exert  an  influence  on  later  Christian  thought  is  quite  obvious. 
"  Salvation  is  from  the  Jews,"  said  our  Divine  Saviour,  and 
so  likewise  was  the  early  preaching  of  the  Gospel.  The  Apos 
tles  and  first  disciples  of  the  Lord  had  been  trained  up  in 
the  doctrines  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  some  of  their  im 
mediate  successors  were  deeply  imbued  with  Hellenistic 
thought.  Nor  was  there  in  this  any  great  danger  to  the 
purity  of  the  Gospel  message.  Outward  expression  of  re 
vealed  doctrines  might  bear  the  impress  of  the  preacher's  early 
associations;  forms  of  speech  might  be  used  that  would  be 
calculated  to  puzzle  later  generations;  certain  elements  of  the 
Saviour's  teaching  might  be  emphasized  and  others  barely 
stated  in  a  casual  way:  but  all  this  did  not  necessarily  imply 
that  the  Evangel  of  Christ  would  either  be  coerced  into  the 
narrow  compass  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  or  flow  out  unhindered 
into  the  shoreless  ocean  of  Greek  speculation.  The  issue 


34  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

would  depend  on  the  promised  measure  of  divine  assistance; 
for  if  the  message  was  divine,  its  subsequent  propagation  and 
conservation  must  depend  on  a  help  that  was  equally  divine. 
In  this  a  merely  human  care  and  human  wisdom  would  be 
insufficient.  What  did  happen  will  appear  in  the  sequel. 


CHAPTER  III 

NEW   TESTAMENT   TEACHING   ON   THE   FUNDAMENTAL 
TRUTHS  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

To  the  general  outline  of  revealed  truths  contained  in  the 
Old  Testament,  as  given  in  the  preceding  chapter,  must  now 
be  added  a  summary  statement  of  the  Gospel  message.  The 
two  together  will  enable  us  to  form  a  proper  appreciation  of 
doctrinal  development,  as  it  is  portrayed  in  the  History  of 
Dogmas.  However,  as  this  statement  must  necessarily  be 
very  brief,  it  appears  advisable  to  confine  our  observations  to 
such  points  of  doctrine  as  are  of  greater  fundamental  impor 
tance,  and  for  that  reason  recur  constantly  in  the  preaching 
of  the  Gospel.  These  are  Christ's  own  teaching  on  the  king 
dom  of  heaven  and  on  the  life  eternal,  St.  Paul's  doctrine 
on  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  the  doctrinal  data  on  the  mys 
tery  of  the  Blessed  Trinity  and  on  the  person  of  the  Saviour, 
both  as  found  in  the  Gospels  and  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul. 
The  reason  for  thus  placing  St.  Paul's  Epistles  on  a  level  with 
the  Gospels,  and  treating  them  as  an  independent  source  of 
revealed  truth,  lies  in  the  fact  that  he  received  his  gospel  not 
of  man,  but  from  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ.1  The  mes 
sage  which  the  Saviour  announced  personally,  as  recorded  by 
the  Evangelists,  He  also  announced  through  Paul,  whom  He 
made  "  a  vessel  of  election." 

A — CHRIST'S  TEACHING  ON  THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN  2 

In  one  sense  the  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  runs 
through  the  whole  New  Testament,  and  is  set  forth  as  clearly 
and  fully  by  St.  John  and  St.  Paul  as  by  the  first  three  Evan- 

1  G.  i,  ii,  12.  Dictionnaire  Apologetique,  art.  Eg- 

2  Cfr.  Yves  de  La  Briere,  in  the      lise,  I,  1221-1301. 

35 


36  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

gelists;  yet  in  another  sense  it  is  found  almost  exclusively  in 
the  Synoptic  Gospels.  St.  John  and  St.  Paul  use  the  term, 
but  only  incidentally ;  they  throw  the  Saviour's  teaching  on  the 
kingdom  into  another  form,  the  one  speaking  of  it  as  the 
life  eternal  and  the  other  as  the  Church  of  Christ.  The 
contents,  as  we  shall  see,  are  the  same  in  each  case;  but  the 
form  differs.  And  it  is  this  difference  of  form  that  makes  it 
advisable  to  consider  separately  the  three  several  aspects  of 
one  and  the  same  doctrine.  Hence  in  this  first  section  we 
shall  confine  our  remarks  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus  on  the 
kingdom  of  Heaven  as  recorded  by  the  Synoptists. 

The  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  may  be  said  to  be  the  funda 
mental  idea  that  underlies  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  St.  Mark 
and  St.  Luke  usually  speak  of  it  as  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
St.  Matthew  as  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  The  two  expressions 
are  identical  in  sense,  and  properly  signify  the  reign  or  domi 
nation  of  God,  as  appears  from  the  Greek  text.  In  its  main 
outline  and  general  concept,  this  doctrine  of  the  kingdom 
presents  an  Old  Testament  idea,  and  coincides  with  the  pro 
phetic  view  of  the  Messianic  reign.3  Some  modern  critics 
take  this  kingdom,  as  portrayed  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  to  be 
exclusively  eschatological  in  character,  holding  that  Christ 
regarded  its  establishment  as  coincident  with  the  end  of  time. 
However,  the  various  texts  bearing  on  the  subject  make  it 
quite  clear  that  the  term  is  used  in  a  threefold  sense.  In 
some  passages  the  kingdom  is  obviously  considered  in  its  final 
consummation,  as  God's  kingdom  of  the  elect  already  in 
possession  of  their  eternal  reward,  and  in  this  sense  it  is  purely 
eschatological.  In  other  places  it  is  referred  to  as  present  and 
established  here  on  earth,  either  as  including  both  the  just  and 
the  unjust  in  a  state  of  preparation,  or  as  including  only  the 
just  who  here  and  now  comply  with  all  the  conditions  it  im 
poses;  evidently  in  neither  of  these  two  connections  does  it  bear 
an  eschatological  import.  It  is  as  much  a  part  of  the  actual 
present  as  is  the  field  in  which  wheat  and  cockle  are  allowed 
to  grow  until  the  time  of  the  harvest.4  Hence  the  Baptist 

8Cfr.   L.   Fonk,   Parables  of  the         4Matt.  13,  24-30. 
Gospels,   53-63. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  TEACHING  37 

announced  it  as  close  at  hand,  and  Jesus  declared  that  it  had 
appeared  with  His  advent.5 

The  kingdom  is  first  announced  to  the  Jews,  but  it  is  in 
tended  for  all.6  Hence  the  Apostles  must  preach  it  to  all 
nations,  and  before  the  consummation  of  the  ages  the  glad 
tidings  must  spread  over  the  whole  world.7  It  shall  grow  as 
a  mustard  seed,  and  pervade  the  life  of  individuals  and  of 
society  as  a  leaven,  changing  the  whole  mass.  Yet,  though 
all  are  called  to  this  kingdom,  admittance  into  it  can  be  secured 
only  on  certain  conditions.  These  may  be  summed  up  as 
faith  in  the  divine  message,  penance  for  past  misdeeds,  attach 
ment  to  the  person  of  Christ,  readiness  to  confess  Him  before 
men,  an  humble  and  docile  heart,  purity  of  morals,  and  help 
fulness  to  the  neighbor.8 

The  ruler  of  this  kingdom  is  God ;  yet  not  the  Father  alone, 
but  also  the  Son.  The  Father  is  the  "  householder  who 
planted  a  vineyard,  and  made  a  hedge  round  about  it,  and 
dug  a  press,  and  built  a  tower,  and  let  it  out  to  husbandmen  " ; 
but  the  Son  "  is  the  heir,"  whom  the  faithless  husbandmen 
killed,  yet  could  not  deprive  of  "  his  inheritance."  He  was 
sent  by  the  Father,  and  He  Himself  sent  others,  giving  the 
"  kingdom  to  a  nation  yielding  the  fruits  thereof."  9 

Under  one  aspect  this  kingdom  is  interior,  the  reign  of 
justice  in  the  hearts  of  men;  but  it  also  has  a  social  side. 
Christ  Himself  calls  it  an  ecclesia,  a  church,  for  which  He  is 
making  preparation  in  the  establishment  of  the  Apostolic  col 
lege.  He  will  build  it  upon  Peter,  the  Rock,  who  shall  be  its 
indestructible  foundation.  For  this  purpose  He  will  give  to 
Peter  the  keys  of  the  kingdom,  supreme  power  to  bind  and 
to  loosen  here  on  earth,  in  such  wise  that  his  actions  shall  be 
ratified  in  heaven.10  As  the  head  of  the  Church,  Peter's 
faith  shall  never  fail,  and  he  shall  confirm  his  brethren.11 
With  him  are  associated  the  other  Apostles,  who  shall  also 
receive  power  to  bind  and  to  loosen ; 12  they  are  all  sent  to 

5  Ibid.  3,  2;   12,  28.  9Ibid.  21,  33-45- 

6  Ibid.  10,  5,  6.  10  Ibid.  16,  13-19. 

7  Ibid.  28,  19.  "Luke,  22,  32. 

8  Ibid.  II,  12;  5,  3-12.  12Matt.  18,  19. 


38  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

baptize  and  to  teach,  and  they  must  be  listened  to  as  Jesus 
Himself.13 

Admission  into  this  Church  is  by  baptism  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.14  This  bap 
tism,  together  with  faith,  is  necessary  for  salvation.15  Once 
admitted  into  the  Church,  the  members  thereof  must  partake 
of  a  Eucharistic  meal,  at  which  they  eat  the  body  and  drink 
the  blood  of  the  Saviour.  This  rite  is  performed  in  obedi 
ence  to  Christ's  explicit  command,  and  commemorates  the 
immolation  of  Himself  for  the  sins  of  the  world.16 

In  their  intercourse  with  one  another  they  must  be  mindful 
of  the  great  law  of  charity,  loving  not  only  their  brethren  and 
friends,  but  also  their  enemies  and  persecutors,  bearing  injur 
ies  gladly  for  Christ's  sake,  forgiving  offenses,  and  readily 
sacrificing  their  own  interests  for  the  good  of  their  neighbor. 
They  must  keep  their  hearts  pure  and  detached,  and  be  perfect 
as  also  their  Heavenly  Father  is  perfect.17  This  is  required 
of  all,  but  if  some  wish  to  aim  at  higher  things,  let  them  sell 
all  they  have,  give  the  price  of  their  goods  to  the  poor,  leave 
father  and  mother,  and  follow  the  Master  in  voluntary  pov 
erty,  chastity  and  obedience.18 

Here  on  earth  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  is  thus  the 
Church  of  Christ,  includes  both  good  and  bad,  wheat  and 
cockle;  but  the  day  of  separation  will  come,  and  this  will  be 
twofold.  An  individual  separation  takes  place  immediately 
after  death,  when  those  who  have  followed  Dives  shall  be 
buried  with  him  in  hell,  whilst  those  others  who  have  suffered 
patiently  like  Lazarus  shall  be  at  peace  in  Abraham's  bosom.19 
Then  there  will  be  another  separation  at  the  end  of  time,  a 
judgment  of  the  whole  world,  when  every  one  shall  be  re 
warded  or  punished  according  to  his  deeds.  This  will  be  pre 
ceded  by  a  general  resurrection  of  the  dead,20  so  that  body  and 
soul  may  share  a  common  fate.  The  wicked  shall  go  into 
everlasting  fire,  enkindled  for  the  devil  and  his  angels;  and 

13  Luke,  10,  16.  17  Matt.  5,  19-48. 

14  Matt.   28,    19.  18  Ibid.  19,  21. 

15  Mark,  16,  16.  19  Luke,   16,   19-21. 

16  Ibid.  26,  26-29.  20  Ibid.  20,  37,  38 ;  Matt.  5,  29. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  TEACHING  39 

the  just  shall  possess  forever  the  kingdom  prepared  for  them 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world.21 

B — THE  LIFE  ETERNAL 

Corresponding  to  the  kingdom  of  God  as  portrayed  by  the 
Synoptists,  we  find  in  St.  John's  account  a  presentation  of 
life  eternal.  The  proper  object  of  the  mission  of  Jesus  is 
not  to  judge  the  world,  but  to  save  it;  to  give  it  eternal  life. 
"  Now  this  is  eternal  life ;  that  they  may  know  thee,  the  only 
true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ,  whom  thou  hast  sent."  22  Hence 
Jesus  is  the  light,  "  which  enlighteneth  every  man  that  cometh 
into  this  world.23  He  is  to  give  His  flesh  for  the  life  of  His 
followers;  He  is  the  Good  Shepherd  who  dies  for  His  flock. 
All  this  is  in  accord  with  the  command  He  has  received  from 
His  Father.  Yet  no  one  takes  His  life  away  from  Him,  but 
He  lays  it  down  of  His  own  free  will ;  and  as  He  has  power  to 
lay  it  down,  so  has  He  also  power  to  take  it  up  again.24 

This  eternal  life  is  intended  for  all  men,  because  "  God  so 
loved  the  world  as  to  give  his  only-begotten  Son,  that  who 
soever  believeth  in  him  may  not  perish,  but  may  have  life 
everlasting."  25  But  in  regard  to  some  this  intention  of  God  is 
not  realized;  for  "men  love  darkness  rather  than  the  light," 
and  so  instead  of  allowing  themselves  to  be  "  drawn  by  the 
Father,"  they  follow  their  own  will  and  trust  in  their  own 
devices.26  They  refuse  to  comply  with  the  conditions  laid 
down  for  entrance  into  eternal  life,  the  chief  of  which  is 
attachment  to  Jesus.27  They  must  belong  to  His  sheepfold; 
they  must  be  united  to  Him  even  as  the  branches  are  united 
to  the  vine.28 

In  its  completeness  this  eternal  life  is  twofold :  it  begins 
here  on  earth  and  reaches  its  final  perfection  in  heaven.  In 
so  far  as  it  has  its  inception  on  earth,  it  does  not  consist  only 
in  the  perfection  of  individual  souls,  but  it  also  implies  a 
close  union  with  the  social  organization  of  which  Christ  Him- 

21  Ibid.  25,  31-45.  25  ibid.  3,  16. 

22  John,  17,  3.  26  ibid.  3,  19. 

23  Ibid,  i,  9.  27  ibid.  15,  7-io. 

2*  Ibid.  10,  17,  18.  28  Ibid.  10,  14-17,  15,  5-8. 


40  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

self  lays  the  foundation  during  His  three  years  of  public 
teaching.  He  gathers  around  Him  twelve  Apostles,  whom 
He  endows  with  His  own  authority,  and  sends  out  into  the 
world  even  as  he  was  sent  by  the  Father.29  He  sanctifies 
Himself  for  them,  and  prays  that  they,  and  all  who  believe 
through  their  word,  may  be  one  as  He  and  the  Father  are 
one.30  He  promises  them  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Paraclete,  who 
will  teach  them  all  things  and  remain  with  them  forever.31 

Hence,  although  He,  the  Good  Shepherd,  must  go  to  the 
Father,  His  sheepfold  shall  remain.  For  its  preservation  He 
makes  one  of  His  Apostles  His  own  substitute,  appointing  him 
as  chief  shepherd  in  His  own  stead,  with  the  power  and  the 
duty  of  feeding  His  lambs  and  His  sheep.32  His  mission  is 
to  be  continued  by  all  the  Apostles ;  they  are  all  sent  to  preach 
and  to  teach,  to  forgive  and  to  retain  sins  through  the  Holy 
Spirit  who  is  given  them;  but  to  Peter  alone  is  the  care  of 
the  whole  flock  entrusted.  Thus  the  sheepfold  is  identical 
with  the  Church  which  is  built  on  Peter.  St.  John's  thoughts 
are  cast  in  a  different  mold;  his  terms  and  expressions  are 
peculiarly  his  own;  but  the  contents  of  his  doctrine  are  the 
same  as  that  of  the  Synoptists,  because  both  represent  the 
doctrine  of  Christ. 

As  no  one  "  can  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  unless  he 
be  born  again  of  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost,"  33  entrance  into 
the  Church  is  evidently  obtained  through  baptism;  and  once 
admitted  into  it,  the  members  thereof  must  "  eat  the  flesh  of 
the  Son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood,"  or  they  shall  not  have 
life  in  them.34  Furthermore,  they  must  all  believe  in  Jesus, 
hear  the  voice  of  the  Shepherd  and  follow  him,  so  that  there 
may  be  but  one  fold  and  one  shepherd.  Under  these  condi 
tions  the  Church  is  open  to  all,  and  any  one  may  enter  and 
remain  in  the  fold ;  for  besides  the  Jews,  the  Good  Shepherd 
has  other  sheep;  them  also  must  He  bring.35 

On  the  other  hand,  those  who  will  not  comply  with  the 

29  Ibid.  20,  21.  33  Ibid.  3,  5. 

30  Ibid.  17,  4-25.  34  ibid.  6,  54-64. 

31  Ibid.  16,  13-15.  35  ibid.  10,  3-16. 
82  Ibid.  21,  15-17;  20,  21-23. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  TEACHING  41 

conditions  here  laid  down,  and  whose  works  are  evil,  by  that 
very  fact  judge  themselves.36  In  this  sense  the  judgment, 
which  is  to  follow  death,  already  begins  in  the  present  life, 
and  determines  each  one's  condition  in  the  world  to  come. 
But  this  judgment  will  be  followed  by  another  one  at  the  end 
of  time,  when  all  shall  rise  again  and  receive  the  recompense 
of  their  mortal  deeds.  For  "  the  hour  cometh,  wherein  all 
that  are  in  their  graves  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of 
God;  and  they  that  have  done  good  things,  shall  come  forth 
unto  the  resurrection  of  life;  but  they  that  have  done  evil, 
unto  the  resurrection  of  the  judgment."  37  This  final  retribu 
tion  will  be  the  full  development  of  each  one's  condition  here 
on  earth:  for  the  just  the  full  possession  of  life  in  conse 
quence  of  their  union  with  Christ;  for  the  wicked,  death  and 
God's  wrath  always  standing  against  them.38 

C — ST.  PAUL'S  DOCTRINE  ON  THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST 

Christ's  teaching  on  the  kingdom  of  heaven  and  on  the 
life  eternal,  as  recorded  by  the  Synoptists  and  St.  John 
respectively,  represents  the  Church  as  an  institution  still  in 
the  course  of  formation.  It  had  its  beginning  indeed  during 
the  Saviour's  life  time,  in  as  much  as  the  foundation  was  then 
laid  and  the  necessary  powers  were  either  promised  or  actu 
ally  conferred ;  but  it  was  to  stand  forth  as  a  complete  organi 
zation  only  after  He  had  ascended  to  the  Father.  Then  the 
Holy  Ghost  came  down  upon  the  Apostles,  as  had  been  prom 
ised  by  Jesus,  and  the  Church  entered  upon  her  divine  mis 
sion  of  saving  the  world.  It  is  under  this  aspect  that  St. 
Paul  speaks  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

In  many  respects  his  presentation  of  the  subject  coincides 
closely  with  that  of  St.  John,  in  as  much  as  he  emphasizes  the 
intimate  union  that  exists  between  the  Church  and  her 
Founder.  He  speaks  of  her  as  the  body  of  Christ,  the  spouse 
of  the  Saviour,  made  immaculate  by  His  cleansing  blood.39 
Jesus  is  her  head,  the  center  of  her  unity,  the  source  of  her 

36  Ibid.  3,  18 ;  cfr.  12,  48.  38  Ibid.   3,   36. 

37  Ibid.  5,  28,  29.  8»  Ephes.  5,  23-30. 


42  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

organic  life.40  Then,  too,  the  Spirit  of  Truth  abides  in  her, 
and  makes  her  the  pillar  and  groundwork  of  truth.41  In  the 
"  one  Spirit  were  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  Jews 
or  Gentiles,  whether  bond  or  free;  and  in  one  Spirit  we  have 
all  been  made  to  drink."  42  Hence  the  Holy  Spirit,  together 
with  Christ,  is  the  source  of  life  to  the  Church  and  the  bond 
of  union  among  the  faithful. 

The  Church  is  an  organized  society,  in  which  there  are  many 
ministries,  but  they  all  come  from  the  same  Spirit.43  Men  of 
approved  virtue  are  constituted  to  govern  each  particular  com 
munity  of  believers.  Some  of  them  are  overseers  or  bishops, 
others  presbyters,  others  deacons.44  The  bishops,  either  by 
themselves  or  together  with  the  presbyters,  must  instruct  the 
faithful,  preach  sound  doctrine,  and  rebuke  the  gainsayers ; 45 
they  must  also  ordain  fit  candidates  for  these  sacred  functions 
by  the  imposition  of  hands.46 

Repeated  mention  is  made  of  certain  sacred  rites,  all  more 
or  less  intimately  connected  with  the  social  life  of  the  Church. 
The  first  of  these  is  baptism  which  symbolizes  the  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  effects  a  spiritual  regen 
eration  in  the  soul.47  This  is  followed  by  the  imposition  of 
hands,  whereby  the  Holy  Spirit  is  imparted  to  the  newly 
baptized.48  Then  there  is  the  Eucharistic  meal,  which  is  the 
body  and  blood  of  Jesus,  is  commemorative  of  His  death, 
and  can  be  worthily  received  by  those  only  who  have  proved 
themselves.49  The  breaking  of  the  bread  and  the  blessing  of 
the  chalice  is  also  a  sacrifice ;  for  the  Christians  have  an  altar 
whereof  those  may  not  eat  who  serve  idols.50 

The  ordination  of  bishops  and  presbyters  constitutes  a  spe 
cial  religious  rite,  which  consists  in  the  imposition  of  hands 
by  the  presbyterium  or  by  the  Apostles,  and  imparts  grace  for 
the  discharge  of  the  various  functions  of  the  sacred  ministry.51 

40  Ibid.  4,  15,  16.  also  Note  Y,  488  sqq. 

41 1  Tim.  3,  15.  45Tit.  i,  9;  I  Tim.  5,  17. 

42  I  Cor.  12,  13.  46  Tit.  i,  5 ;  I  Tim.  4,  13,  14. 

43  Ibid.  12,  5-30.  47  Rom.  6,  3-11;  Ephes.  2,  5,  6. 

44  Phil,  i,  i;  Acts,  19,  6.     In  re-  48  Acts,    19,    16. 
gard  to  St.  Paul's  teaching  on  the  49  I  Cor.   n,  20-34. 
hierarchy,    cfr.    F.    Prat.    La    The-  50  Ibid.  10,  16-21. 
ologie  de  Saint  Paul,     I,  475-482;  51 1  Tim.  4,  14. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  TEACHING  43 

Christian  marriage  is  represented  as  being  of  a  sacred  charac 
ter.  The  union  of  husband  and  wife  is  a  symbol  of  the  union 
of  Christ  with  His  Church.  In  this  sense  it  is  a  great  sacra 
ment.52  Such  a  marriage  cannot  be  dissolved  except  by  death : 
this  is  the  Lord's  command.53  Although  matrimony  is  thus 
a  holy  state,  yet  perfect  continence  and  virginity  are  preferable 
to  it;  and  so  is  widowhood;  but  neither  of  them  is  obliga 
tory.54 

In  their  daily  life  and  in  their  relation  to  one  another,  the 
members  of  the  Church  must  walk  as  the  children  of  light, 
giving  thanks  always  for  all  things,  and  being  subject  to  one 
another  in  the  fear  of  Christ.  Women  must  be  subject  to 
their  husbands,  as  to  the  Lord;  children  must  obey  their 
parents  in  the  Lord;  servants  must  yield  obedience  to  their 
masters  from  the  heart;  masters  must  treat  their  servants  as 
children  of  the  same  Heavenly  Father.55 

The  Church  is  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth,  and  this  king 
dom  shall  have  its  completion  in  the  second  coming  of  Christ. 
When  that  will  be  no  one  knows,  but  the  time  is  short;  we 
must  use  the  world  as  if  we  used  it  not,  for  its  figure  passes 
away.56  However,  before  the  second  advent  of  Christ,  the 
man  of  sin,  the  son  of  perdition,  shall  appear,  who  will  try 
to  usurp  the  place  of  God.57  Then,  at  the  appointed  time, 
the  Lord  shall  come  down  from  heaven,  and  at  the  voice  of 
the  Archangel  and  at  the  sound  of  the  trumpet,  Antichrist 
shall  be  exterminated,  and  the  dead  shall  rise  again,  some  in 
glory  and  others  in  corruption.  Thereupon  follows  the  judg 
ment,  which  shall  be  presided  over  by  Jesus  Christ.  Every 
one  shall  be  judged  according  to  his  works.58  The  just  shall 
inherit  the  kingdom  of  the  Father,  which  will  be  at  the  same 
time  an  inheritance  and  a  reward ;  whilst  the  wicked  receive 
wrath  and  sorrow,  death  and  destruction,  as  the  just  retribu 
tion  of  their  iniquity.59  They  shall  be  assailed  by  the  Lord 

52  Ephes.  5,  25-32.  57  II  Thes.  2,  3-12. 

53  I   Cor.  7,   10,   ii.  58I  Thes.  4,  15;   i,  10;  II  Thes. 

54  Ibid.   7,  7,  25-40.  2,  8;  Rom.  2,  5-16. 

55  Ephes.  5,  18-21;  6,  24.  59  Rom.  8,  17;  2,  5-9;  6,  21. 

56  I  Cor.  7,  29-31. 


44 


THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 


and  His  power  with  an  avenging  fire.     Their  torments,  as  well 
as  the  happiness  of  the  just,  shall  be  everlasting.60 

D — THE  BLESSED  TRINITY  AND  THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST 

In  the  Synoptic  Gospels  only  one  explicit  reference  to  the 
Blessed  Trinity  is  recorded  as  made  by  Christ,  and  this  is  con 
tained  in  His  commandment  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.61  However,  the 
divinity  of  the  Son  is  taught  in  other  texts,  as  will  be  shown 
below ;  and  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost  seems  clearly  implied  in  the 
passages  where  He  is  spoken  of  as  being  sinned  against  and  as 
inspiring  the  disciples.62  Hence,  as  the  oneness  of  God  is 
assumed  all  through  the  Gospels  and  even  explicitly  stated, 
the  elements  of  the  mystery  are  found  in  the  Synoptists  in 
dependently  of  the  baptismal  formula. 

St.  John,  on  the  other  hand,  is  quite  clear  on  the  point, 
although  he  does  not  formulate  the  doctrine  in  express  terms. 
Christ  is  the  only-begotten  of  the  Father;  the  Father  is  the 
source  of  the  Son's  being  and  action,  the  Father  and  the  Son 
know  one  another;  they  remain  one  in  the  other,  to  both  the 
same  honor  is  paid,  and  they  are  one.63  In  this  there  is  at 
the  same  time  distinction  and  identity:  distinction  of  persons 
and  identity  of  nature.  The  same  position  is  assigned  to  the 
Holy  Ghost.  He  proceeds  from  the  Father  and  receives  from 
the  Son,  and  this  because  everything  that  is  the  Father's  is  the 
Son's  also.  Both  send  Him,  yet  He  is  not  separated  from 
them ;  for  the  Father  and  the  Son  accompany  Him  and  dwell 
together  with  Him  in  the  hearts  of  the  faithful.64  He  is  truly 
a  divine  person;  for  He  is  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  who  instructs 
the  Apostles,  and  takes  Christ's  place  in  their  regard.65 

St.  Paul  does  not  state  the  mystery  of  the  Blessed  Trinity 
in  so  many  words,  but  he  implies  it  with  sufficient  clearness. 
There  is  one  God,  the  Father  of  all,  and  with  Him  associated 
in  power  and  glory  is  His  own  Son,  who  is  His  image,  being 

60  I  Cor.  9,  25;  Rom.  2,  7;  5,  21;  C3John,  5,  19,  26;  10,  15;  8,  29; 
II  Thes.  i,  8,  9.  5,  23 ;  10,  30. 

61  Matt.  28,  19.  64  Ibid.  15,  26,  14,  15 ;  16,  26;  14,  23. 

62  Mark,  13,  n;  Luke,  10,  10,  12.  65  Ibid.  14,  16,  17;  15,  26. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  TEACHING  45 

in  the  form  of  God,  and  by  whom  all  things  are  made.66 
With  the  Father  and  the  Son  is  enumerated  also  the  Holy 
Spirit,  who  dwells  in  our  souls,  and  who  prays  in  us.  He 
knows  the  secrets  of  God,  and  is  God.  He  is  at  the  same  time 
the  Spirit  of  God  and  the  Spirit  of  Christ;  is  sent  by  the 
Father  and  belongs  to  the  Son.67  Hence  the  Trinitarian 
formula :  "  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the 
charity  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  be 
with  you  all.68 

Regarding  the  person  of  Christ  two  points  are  of  special 
importance  in  this  connection:  His  Messiahship  and  His 
divinity.  The  Synoptists  emphasize  the  first  and  imply  the 
second;  St.  John  emphasizes  the  second  and  clearly  states  the 
first;  whilst  St.  Paul  brings  out  both  points,  though  more  or 
less  incidentally,  representing  Christ  primarily  as  the  world's 
Redeemer,  who  restored  man  to  the  high  estate  from  which 
he  had  fallen  through  sin. 

As  recorded  by  the  Synoptists,  Christ  presented  Himself 
from  the  very  opening  of  His  public  career  as  the  Messias 
foretold  by  the  Prophets;  but  at  first  He  did  so  guardedly, 
forbidding  all  open  proclamation  of  the  fact.69  Later  on  He 
freely  accepted  and  also  openly  claimed  the  title,  telling  the 
disciples  of  the  Baptist  that  in  Him  were  fulfilled  the  predic 
tions  of  the  Prophets,  as  the  signs  and  wonders  which  He 
wrought  abundantly  proved.70  Then  He  pointed  out  to  His 
Apostles  that  one  of  them  would  betray  Him,  that  He  should 
be  delivered  into  the  hands  of  the  Gentiles,  be  put  to  death, 
but  that  on  the  third  day  He  would  rise  again,  as  had  been 
foretold  in  the  Old  Testament.71  Thus  whatever  befalls  Him, 
whatever  He  says  and  does,  is  in  fulfilment  of  the  Prophets. 
His  mission  is  to  save  what  has  perished,  to  give  His  life  as 
a  ransom  for  many.  His  blood  is  the  blood  of  the  New 
Covenant,  shed  for  many  unto  the  remission  of  sins.72 

66  Rom.  8,  32;  Col.  i,  15-17;  Phil.         6»  Luke,  4,  16-21;  Mark,  11,  10. 
2,  6.  70Matt   n,  3-5. 

67  I.  Cor.  3,   16;  6,   19;   Rom.  8,         ™  Mark,  8,  31. 

ii ;  4.  6.  72Luke,  24,  44-47;  Matt.  26,  28. 

68  II  Cor.  13,  13. 


46  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

As  Christ  thus  claimed  to  be  the  Messias,  so  did  He  also 
claim  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  It  is  true,  in  the  Synoptic  Gos 
pels  He  is  nowhere  recorded  as  assuming  the  full  title  of  His 
own  initiative ;  but  it  is  stated  that  He  freely  accepted  it  from 
others.73  Twice,  moreover,  He  styles  Himself  the  Son,  and 
He  invariably  calls  God  His  Father.74  That  this  title  was, 
in  the  mind  of  Jesus,  not  merely  Messianic,  but  implied  over 
and  above  a  divine  filiation  in  the  natural  sense  of  the 
term,  is  indeed  nowhere  stated  in  so  many  words ;  but  that  this 
was  really  the  case  appears  to  a  certainty  from  His  manner 
of  speaking  and  from  the  claims  which  He  persistently  ad 
vanced.  A  few  examples  will  suffice  to  make  clear  the  truth 
of  this  statement. 

Thus  almost  at  the  beginning  of  His  public  career,  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  He  acts  as  an  independent  lawgiver, 
whose  authority  is  equal  to  that  of  Jahve.75  Later  on  He 
places  Himself  far  above  all  Patriarchs  and  Prophets  and  holy 
men  of  old;  they  are  merely  Jahve's  servants,  whilst  He  is 
His  Son  and  heir.76  He  claims  a  higher  origin  than  that 
implied  in  His  descent  from  David,  a  greater  glory  than  that 
of  the  Temple.77  He  is  Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  and  He  puts 
Himself  in  the  very  place  of  Jahve  as  the  spouse  of  men's 
immortal  souls.78  He  gives  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
to  whom  He  pleases,79  and  points  to  Himself  as  the  object 
of  men's  highest  aspirations,  in  whom  alone  they  can  find  rest 
for  their  souls.80  He  is  the  Absolute  and  Supreme  Good,  for 
whose  sake  men  must  sacrifice  all  that  is  nearest  and  dearest 
to  them.81  He  is  the  Supreme  Judge,  who  will  pass  sentence 
on  all  in  accordance  with  what  they  have  done  or  failed  to  do 
to  Himself.82  In  speaking  of  God  as  His  Father,  He  entirely 
separates  Himself  from  His  disciples  and  from  the  rest  of 
mankind :  He  says,  "  My  Father  and  your  Father,"  but  never, 
"  Our  Father."  No  one  knows  the  Son  except  the  Father, 

73  Matt.  16,  16,  17;  Mark,  14,  61,  78Ibid.   12,  8;  Mark,  2,  18. 
62.  79Matt  16,  19;  18,  18. 

74  Matt.  II,  27;  Mark,  13,  32.  80  Ibid.  11,  28,  29. 

75  Matt.  5,  21-48.  81  Ibid.  10,  32-38. 

76  Ibid.  21,  33-39.  82  Ibid.  25,  31-46. 

77  Ibid.  12,  6. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  TEACHING  47 

and  no  one  knows  the  Father  except  the  Son :  their  knowledge 
is  one,  and  so  is  their  nature.83  All  this,  as  seems  quite  obvi 
ous,  admits  of  only  one  reasonable  interpretation — that  Christ 
claimed  to  be  true  God  and  wished  to  be  accepted  as  such 
by  men. 

In  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  Christ's  claim  of  the  Messiahship 
appears  throughout  identified  with  His  statement  that  He  is 
the  Son  of  God,  sent  into  this  world  "  that  whosoever  believeth 
in  him  may  not  perish,  but  have  life  everlasting."  He  is  first 
and  foremost  a  divine  Messias,  who  was  in  the  beginning  with 
God  as  the  eternal  Word,  but  in  time  was  made  flesh  and 
dwelt  amongst  us.84  Before  Abraham  was  HE  is;  He  was  in 
glory  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was  made.85  He  comes 
from  heaven  and  goes  back  to  heaven ;  yet  the  Father  is  greater 
than  He.86  He  is  sent  into  the  world,  there  to  fulfill  His 
mission;  but  also  to  speak,  to  act,  and  to  judge  in  His  own 
name.87  His  mission  is  that  of  the  Good  Shepherd,  who  lays 
down  His  life  for  His  sheep.88 

St.  Paul,  as  already  stated,  represents  Christ  primarily  as 
the  promised  Redeemer,  who  delivers  the  world  from  sin. 
Through  Adam  all  have  been  constituted  sinners,  through 
Christ  all  are  made  just.89  With  Him  comes  the  liberation 
from  the  Law;  He  is  the  promise  that  gladdened  the  hearts 
of  the  fathers.  He  is  of  our  race  and  blood,  true  man,  made 
of  woman,  of  the  fathers  according  to  the  flesh ; 90  like  us  in 
all  things,  sin  alone  excepted,  subject  to  our  infirmities,  and 
therefore  capable  of  compassion  in  our  regard.91  Nor  is  He 
simply  an  individual  man;  He  is  the  representative  of  our 
race  in  reference  to  the  redemption.  He  is  the  second  Adam, 
who  is  from  heaven  heavenly,  whilst  the  first  Adam  was  of 
the  earth  earthy;  and  through  Him  we  all  shall  become 
heavenly.92 

But  further,  this  Christ  is  more  than  man :  He  existed  before 
He  appeared  on  earth,  and  took  part  in  the  creation  of  the 

83  Ibid,  ii,  27;  Luke,  10,  22.  88  Ibid.   10,   17,  18. 

84  John,  i,  i,  14.  89Rom.  5,  12-21. 

85  Ibid.  8,  58;  17,  5.  9°Ibid.  5,  12-19. 

86  Ibid.  6,  63,  33,  51 ;  14,  28.  91  Hebr.  2,  17 ;  4,  15 ;  7,  26. 

87  Ibid.  8,  26;  10,  32,  37.  92I  Cor.  15,  45-49. 


48  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

world.  He  is  the  Son  of  God,  God's  own  proper  Son,  the  first 
born,  the  heir  of  all  things,  superior  to  the  angels,  who  must 
adore  Him.  He  is  the  brightness  of  the  Father's  glory,  the 
figure  of  His  substance,  without  beginning  and  without  end 
of  days.93  Before  His  coming  He  existed  in  forma  Dei,  so 
that  He  needed  not  jealously  guard  His  equality  with  God, 
as  if  He  had  obtained  it  by  robbery;  it  was  His  by  nature, 
since  He  is  over  all  things  God  blessed  forever.94 

As  the  representative  of  the  human  race,  Christ  is  made 
sin  for  our  sake  that  in  Him  we  may  become  the  justice  of 
God.95  He  is  the  price  of  our  ransom,  the  means  of  propitia 
tion,  in  which  we  have  a  share  since  we  are  included  in  Him.96 
Yet  this  reconciliation  is  entirely  gratuitous  on  the  part  of 
God,  in  as  much  as  Jesus  is  a  gratuitous  gift  to  our  race,  and 
in  Jesus  God  is  reconciling  the  world  to  Himself.97 

This  work  of  restoration  culminates  in  the  death  of  Jesus: 
sin  is  crucified  in  Him,  and  therefore  also  in  us  who  are 
included  in  Him.  He  is  thus  our  true  High  Priest,  who  offers 
Himself  as  a  victim  for  our  redemption.  His  death  is  a  most 
efficacious  sacrifice,  which  needs  to  be  offered  but  once.98  It 
cleanses  not  from  legal  impurities  only,  as  did  the  sacrifices 
of  the  Old  Law,  but  from  sin  and  guilt.  It  frees  us  from 
the  dominion  of  Satan,  gives  us  access  to  the  throne 
of  mercy,  and  bestows  upon  us  the  blessing  of  divine 
grace.99  It  is  offered  for  all  men,  extends  to  all  times, 
and  is  perpetuated  in  heaven,  where  Jesus  intercedes  for 
us.100  In  Christ  and  in  His  death,  the  Levitical  priesthood 
and  sacrifices  have  come  to  an  end. 

Further  still,  Christ  not  only  died  for  us,  but  He  also  rose 
from  the  dead  and  with  Him  we  arise  to  a  new  life.  This 
new  life  has  its  inception  in  baptism;  then  it  works  through 
faith,  which  makes  us  sharers  in  His  justice  and  merits.101 
Faith  is  the  substance  of  things  to  be  hoped  for,  the  evidence 

93  Rom.    8,    32;    Col.    i,    15,    17;      Cor.  5,   19. 

Hebr.  i,  1-12;  3,  6;  7,  3,  8,  16,  18.  9S  Rom.  3,  25;  Hebr.  10,  7-10;  7, 

94  Phil.  2,  6-9;  Rom.  9,  5.  27;  9,  12,  15. 

95  Rom.  3,  25 ;  6,  6 ;  I  Cor.  5,  19.  "  Ibid.  10,  9 ;  4,  6. 

96  Ibid.  100Ibid.  2,  9;  9,  25,  26;  9,  n,  12. 

97  Rom.  5,  8;   Ephes.   i,  3-6;   II  101  Rom.  6,  3-8;  3,  22-25. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  TEACHING  49 

of  things  that  appear  not.  Without  faith  it  is  impossible  to 
please  God  and  be  saved.  Those  who  lose  it  have  no  further 
hope,  as  they  have  no  further  sacrifice  of  reconciliation.102 
This  faith,  however,  is  not  merely  speculative ;  it  is  eminently 
practical,  a  complete  surrender  of  man  to  God.  It  is,  there 
fore,  not  opposed  to  works  in  general,  but  only  to  those  works 
from  which  faith  is  absent.  "  My  just  man  liveth  by 
faith."  103 

Finally,  as  the  transgression  of  the  first  Adam  implanted 
in  our  flesh  the  principle  of  sin,  so  the  restoration  wrought 
by  the  second  Adam  implants  in  our  soul  the  principle  of 
sanctification.  This  principle  is  the  Spirit  of  God  and  of 
Christ.104  He  is  the  Spirit  of  grace  and  of  charisms.  By 
grace  we  are  made  intrinsically  just  before  God.105  Grace  is 
also  a  principle  of  action,  by  which  we  overcome  temptation, 
do  God's  work,  and  merit  the  crown  of  eternal  justice.106  Be 
sides,  this  Spirit  of  God  and  of  Christ,  though  dwelling  and 
working  chiefly  in  the  soul,  to  which  He  renders  the  testimony 
of  divine  sonship,  extends  His  influence  also  to  the  body;  He 
consecrates  it  as  His  temple,  and  will  one  day  raise  it  from 
the  grave.107 

As  the  reader  may  have  noticed,  on  several  points  of  doc 
trine  St.  Paul  goes  considerably  beyond  the  explicit  teaching  of 
Jesus  as  recorded  in  the  Gospels.  This  seems  especially  true 
in  regard  to  the  consequences  of  Adam's  fall,  the  rise  and 
power  of  concupiscence,  the  transmission  of  original  sin,  the 
nature  of  the  atonement,  the  regeneration  of  human  nature, 
the  scope  and  operation  of  grace;  although  these  points  have 
barely  been  touched  upon  in  the  above  summary  of  his  teaching 
on  redemption.  It  must  be  noted,  however,  that  in  all  this 
there  is  nothing  really  new.  What  the  Gospels  imply,  he  fre 
quently  brings  out  with  great  clearness,  as  was  required  by  the 
conditions  and  circumstances  under  which  he  wrote  and 

i°2Hebr.  n,  I,  6;  6,  4-8-  105Rom.  5,   16-21;  Ephes.  3,   14, 

103  Rom.   i,  5,  17;  6,   16,   17;   G.      21. 

2,  16;  3,  ii.  106Rom.  7,  23-25;  I  Cor.  15,  10; 

104  Rom.  8,  4-12 ;  I  Cor.  2,  14,  15  J      II  Tim.  4,  7,  8. 

G.  5,  16.  107I  Cor.  3,  16;  6,  19;  Rom.  8, 

TT 


50  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

preached.  His  initial  declaration  that  his  preaching  was  "  by 
the  revelation  of  Christ,"  and  that  he  had  not  received  his 
message  from  men,  was  not  meant  as  a  justification  of  any 
departure  in  his  doctrine  from  the  Gospel  message  announced 
by  the  other  Apostles.  Hence  his  boldness  in  declaring  ana 
thema  any  one  who  should  presume  to  preach  a  gospel  dif 
ferent  from  his  own.  Hence,  too,  the  readiness  with  which 
James  and  Cephas  and  John  gave  him  the  right  hand  of  fellow 
ship.108 

108  G.  i,  9. 


CHAPTER  IV 

CHRISTIAN  LIFE  IN  APOSTOLIC  TIMES:    THE  FIRST  AP 
PEARANCE  OF  HERESIES 

Faithful  to  their  Master's  command,  the  Apostles  waited 
for  "  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  "  and  then  "  were  witnesses 
unto  Jesus  in  Jerusalem,  and  in  all  Judea,  and  Samaria,  and 
even  to  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth."  Assisted  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  they  taught  whatever  He  had  commanded  them,  and 
thus  spread  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation  through  the  name  of 
Jesus.  Their  earliest  missionary  preaching  developed  this 
thesis :  Jesus  is  the  promised  Messias ;  in  Him  all  the  proph 
ecies  are  fulfilled;  He  died  for  the  salvation  of  sinners,  was 
buried,  rose  again  from  the  dead,  ascended  into  heaven,  and 
on  the  last  day  He  shall  come  to  judge  all  mankind.  He  is 
the  Ruler  and  the  Lord:  Him  all  must  accept,  believe  in,  and 
worship.  All  must  do  penance,  be  baptized  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  then  they  shall  receive 
the  Holy  Ghost.1 

These  glad  tidings  were  first  announced  to  the  Jews,  but  by 
a  special  revelation  Peter  was  reminded  that  they  must  also 
be  preached  to  the  Gentiles.2  As  head  of  the  Church,  he  acted 
independently  in  the  matter,  but  not  without  being  severely 
criticised  by  certain  narrow-minded  converts  from  Judaism.3 
Later  on  it  was  especially  St.  Paul  who  devoted  himself  to 
the  conversion  of  Gentile  nations.  Concerning  the  conditions 
on  which  converts  from  heathenism  were  to  be  admitted,  there 
was  at  first  a  diversity  of  opinion,  but  a  council  of  the  Apostles 
and  elders  decided  that  the  ordinances  of  the  Mosaic  Law 
need  not  be  observed.4  However,  a  Judaizing  party  caused 

1  Cfr.  Acts,  cc.  1-5.  3  Ibid,  n,  1-3. 

2  Ibid.  c.  10.  *Ibid.   15,  1-29. 

Si 


52  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

considerable  trouble,  and  it  was  largely  due  to  the  determina 
tion  of  St.  Paul  that  the  decisions  given  at  Jerusalem  were 
carried  into  effect. 

The  gradual  formation  of  the  Church  and  the  development 
of  the  hierarchy  proceeded  in  conformity  with  the  funda 
mental  ideas  outlined  in  the  preceding  chapter.  Admittance 
into  the  Church  could  be  obtained  only  through  baptism,  and 
this  presupposed  faith  and  penance.5  Baptism  was  followed 
by  imposition  of  hands,  whereby  the  Holy  Ghost  was  com 
municated.6  The  faithful  persevered  in  prayer  and  in  the 
breaking  of  bread.7  In  Jerusalem  they  at  first  practiced  com 
munity  of  goods,  and  in  all  places  they  were  mindful  of  the 
poorer  brethren.  For  the  service  of  the  poor  seven  deacons 
were  chosen  by  the  faithful,  and  then  consecrated  for  their 
work  by  the  Apostles.8  Some  of  them  also  preached  the 
Gospel  and  baptized  converts ;  but  they  could  not  communicate 
the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  imposition  of  hands.  This  was  re 
served  to  the  Apostles.9  If  any  of  the  faithful  fell  sick,  the 
presbyters  were  called  in,  to  pray  over  the  sick  man  and  to 
anoint  him  with  oil  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  that  he  might  obtain 
relief  in  his  sickness  and  also  the  forgiveness  of  his  sins.10 
For  the  continuance  of  the  Apostolic  work,  men  of  approved 
virtue  were  constituted  presbyters  by  the  imposition  of  hands, 
and  thereby  the  Holy  Ghost  made  them  guardians  of  the 
flock.11 

As  regards  the  instruction  of  converts  before  baptism,  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  the  Letters  of  St.  Paul  make  it  suf 
ficiently  clear  that  this  was  in  the  beginning  of  a  somewhat 
compendious  and  general  character.  Thus,  when  it  is  stated 
that  after  the  first  sermon  of  St.  Peter  "  as  many  as  received 
the  word  were  baptized,"  and  "  there  were  added  in  that  day 
about  three  thousand  souls,"  12  the  inference  is  that  faith  in 
the  most  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  and 
a  ready  will  to  observe  His  commandments  were  then  and 

5  Ibid.  2,  38,  41 ;  8,  36-28.  9  Ibid.  8,  14. 

e  Ibid.  8,  17,  19;  19,  5,  6.  10Jas.  5,  14,  15. 

7  Ibid.  2,  42,  46;  20,  II.  i1  Acts,  20,  28. 

8  Ibid.  6,  1-6.  12Acts,  I,  41. 


CHRISTIAN  LIFE  IN  APOSTOLIC  TIMES         53 

there  deemed  sufficient  for  admission  into  the  Church.  Yet 
from  this  it  does  not  follow  that  the  first  Christians  had  only 
a  vague  and  imperfect  idea  of  the  contents  of  their  faith. 
For  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  whole  Gospel  was  preached 
to  them,  and  however  limited  their  knowledge  of  Christian 
truths  might  be  at  the  time  of  their  baptism,  it  was  certainly 
very  much  extended  and  perfected  as  soon  as  the  opportunity 
for  this  was  offered.  In  fact,  it  was  precisely  from  the  preach 
ing  of  the  Apostles  that  our  present  Gospels  originated,  and 
therefore  their  contents  must  have  been  known  to  the  Chris 
tians  of  the  Apostolic  age.  Faith  and  good  will  were  in  the 
earliest  times  undoubtedly  considered  sufficient  for  baptism, 
but  baptism  was  only  the  beginning  of  Christian  life. 

Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that  these  first  converts  came  from 
Judaism,  and  were  already  instructed  in  nearly  all  the  essen 
tials  of  the  faith.  Their  acceptance  of  the  Messias,  as  preached 
by  the  Apostles,  made  their  faith  Christian.  No  doubt, 
occasionally  pagans  also  were  received  in  the  same  way, 
but  as  a  general  rule  their  instruction  previous  to  bap 
tism  was  more  thorough.  St.  Paul's  practice  of  tarrying 
for  a  considerable  time  in  each  new  church  he  founded, 
as  well  as  his  letters  to  the  different  Christian  communi 
ties,  bears  ample  witness  to  this.  Along  what  lines  these 
instructions  proceeded,  may,  aside  from  the  Letters  them 
selves,  be  gathered  from  the  Apostles'  Creed,  which  we  know 
to  have  been  used  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  as 
a  profession  of  faith  before  baptism.  It  is  indeed  not  likely 
that  this  Creed  was  composed  by  the  Apostles  themselves, 
although  there  was  an  early  tradition  to  that  effect;  never 
theless,  as  the  most  competent  critics  admit,  it  certainly  grew 
out  of  an  Apostolic  practice.  In  its  most  ancient  form  it  reads 
as  follows : 

"  I  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty ;  and  in  Jesus 
Christ,  His  only  Son,  our  Saviour,  born  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  the  Virgin  Mary,  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate,  and 
buried,  He  rose  again  on  the  third  day  from  the  dead,  ascended 
into  heaven,  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father;  from 
whence  He  shall  come  to  judge  the  living  and  the  dead;  and 


54  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Holy  Church,  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
and  the  resurrection  of  the  body."  13 

As  is  quite  obvious,  this  Creed  is  divided  into  three  articles, 
which  correspond  to  the  three  divine  names  in  the  baptismal 
formula.  The  first  article  contains  a  statement  of  the  candi 
date's  belief  in  one  God,  the  author  of  all  things;  the  second 
epitomizes  the  whole  Gospel  history;  whilst  the  third,  pro 
fessing  faith  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  completed  by  a  brief  men 
tion  of  the  Church,  the  forgiveness  of  sins  through  baptism, 
and  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  Used  as  a  profession  of 
faith  in  the  baptismal  rite,  it  served  at  the  same  time  as  a  re 
capitulation  of  the  catechetical  instructions  which  had  been 
given  to  the  neophytes.  Hence  it  gives  us  a  fair  insight  into 
the  general  scope  and  contents  of  these  instructions. 

With  this  general  outline  of  Apostolic  teaching  before  us, 
and  calling  to  mind  what  was  said  in  the  first  and  second 
chapters  about  the  condition  of  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  world 
at  the  time  of  Christ,  we  can  form  some  idea  of  what  conver 
sion  to  Christianity  meant  in  those  early  days.  For  converts 
from  paganism  there  was  opened  up  an  entirely  new  world. 
The  gods  and  goddesses  of  their  erstwhile  Pantheon  were  for 
ever  dethroned,  making  way  for  the  one  true  God,  who  was 
to  be  adored  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  There  were  to  be  no 
further  incantations,  divinations,  and  offerings  of  material 
victims  in  sacrifice;  but  in  their  stead  succeeded  hymns  and 
canticles,  and  the  one  clean  oblation  once  offered  for  the 
redemption  of  the  world.  The  attainment  of  riches  and  the 
enjoyment  of  pleasures  were  no  longer  to  constitute  life's  chief 
purpose;  for  the  world  and  all  its  passing  show  were  to  be 
regarded  as  a  place  and  condition  of  exile,  whose  one  object 
must  ever  be  to  make  preparation  for  the  coming  of  the  Lord. 
Truly  a  star  had  risen  out  of  Jacob,  whose  radiance  enlight 
ened  the  dwellers  in  the  shadows  of  the  valley  of  death. 

But  even  for  converts  from  Judaism  there  was  opened  up 
a  much  wider  horizon  than  they  had  ever  dreamt  of  whilst 
still  groaning  under  the  yoke  of  the  Law.  They  still  retained 

13Cfr.  Bardenhewer,  Altkirch.  Lit.  I,  68-76;  Patrol.  17,  18;  Tixeront, 
H.  D.  I,  142. 


CHRISTIAN  LIFE  IN  APOSTOLIC  TIMES         55 

their  ancient  watchword,  "  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  thy  God 
is  one  God,"  but  with  this  one  God  was  associated  in  their 
new  belief  His  only-begotten  Son,  who  dwelt  on  the  very 
pinnacle  of  divinity.  There  could  be  no  thought  in  their  mind 
that  He  was  divine  in  a  wider  sense,  as  were  the  deified 
heroes  of  Greece  and  Rome;  or  that  His  generation  from  the 
Father  was  on  a  par  with  that  of  the  old  gods  of  Olympus 
whose  genealogies  were  well  known.  Whether  their  instruc 
tions  had  been  received  from  James  or  John  or  Peter,  it  mat 
tered  not:  Jesus  Christ  was  put  before  them  as  God's  own 
Son,  the  eternal  Word,  true  God,  by  whom  all  things  were 
made.  And  then  there  was  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Spirit  of 
the  Father  and  of  the  Son,  the  Spirit  of  God  and  of  Christ, 
in  whose  name,  together  with  that  of  the  Father  and  of  the? 
Son,  they  had  received  the  remission  of  their  sins  in  the 
sacred  laver  of  regeneration.  He,  too,  must  be  reverenced  with 
equal  honor.  Yes,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  thy  God  is  one  God, 
but  in  that  one  God  is  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  each  of  them  identical  with  God  and  yet  in  some  mys 
terious  way  each  one  distinct  from  the  others.  In  this  was 
presented  to  them  a  mystery  of  the  inner  life  of  the  Godhead 
which  perhaps  even  those  among  them  who  were  most  con 
versant  with  Jewish  theology  had  barely  so  much  as  suspected. 
And  so  were  their  minds  raised  to  loftier  heights  in  the 
worship  which  this  Triune  God  claimed  as  acceptable  to  Him 
from  His  children  on  earth.  The  Temple  worship  with  its 
multifarious  sacrifices  of  sheep  and  goats  and  oxen,  and  its 
many  sprinklings  of  blood,  was  set  aside  as  superseded  by  the 
one  great  sacrifice  of  the  New  Covenant,  wherein  they  were 
nourished  with  the  body  and  blood  of  their  God  Redeemer. 
Only  in  the  accidental  accompaniment  of  prayers  and  hymns, 
of  reading  and  exhortation,  did  they  find  themselves  in  an 
atmosphere  they  were  familiar  with  from  their  recollection  of 
the  Synagogue.  Even  through  this  there  breathed  a  different 
spirit,  less  narrow,  less  subservient  to  the  letter  of  the  sacred 
text,  but  the  material  part  was  practically  the  same.  Their 
own  holy  Patriarchs  were  placed  before  them  as  examples  of 
Christian  virtue,  their  own  beautiful  Psalms  were  recited  as 


56  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

Christian  prayers.  This  was  a  precious  heirloom  which  pre 
served  to  them  their  glorious  past,  and,  in  the  comments  that 
followed,  this  past  was  dwelt  upon  in  order  to  direct  their  hopes 
to  a  still  more  glorious  future.  Then,  too,  the  monotony  of 
their  work-a-day  life  was  as  heretofore  relieved  by  the  Sab 
bath  rest,  although  at  an  early  date  the  following  day,  or 
Sunday,  seems  to  have  been  devoted  to  divine  service.  In  all 
this  they  had  a  decided  advantage  over  their  fellow  converts 
from  paganism,  whose  whole  religious  life  had  to  be  placed 
on  a  new  basis. 

A  further  widening  of  outlook  was  experienced  by  converts 
from  Judaism  in  reference  to  their  social  relations.  Hitherto, 
even  if  domiciled  in  Gentile  lands,  their  social  intercourse  was 
practically  limited  to  those  of  their  own  nation.  They  were 
the  chosen  people,  and  intimate  contact  with  strangers  begot 
in  them  a  certain  sense  of  defilement,  even  apart  from  the 
prescriptions  and  prohibitions  of  the  Law.  Hence  wherever 
they  finally  settled  down  in  their  wanderings  over  the  Empire, 
they  forthwith  formed  a  community  within  a  community,  gov 
erned  by  its  own  customs  and  largely  also  by  its  own  laws. 
But  now  they  were  taught  that  in  Christ  Jesus  there  was 
neither  Jew  nor  Gentile,  neither  bond  nor  free,  and  that  even 
strangers  must  be  loved  and  treated  as  children  of  the  same 
Father  in  heaven.  However,  this  did  not  cause  so  violent  a 
wrench  as  might  at  first  sight  appear;  for  the  idea  of  a  chosen 
people  was  instinctively  transferred  from  the  Jewish  nation 
to  the  followers  of  Christ,  whom  St.  Peter  had  already  desig 
nated  as  "  a  chosen  generation,  a  kingly  priesthood,  a  holy 
nation,  a  purchased  people."  Hence,  although  there  was  some 
opposition  in  the  Palestinian  community,  there  soon  sprang 
up  a  new  Israel,  whose  children,  gathered  from  all  parts  of 
the  Empire,  were  quickened  by  the  same  faith,  sustained  by 
the  same  hope,  bound  together  by  the  same  charity,  and  guided 
in  their  aspirations  and  practices  by  the  universally  acknowl 
edged  authority  of  those  whom  Christ  had  sent  to  announce 
the  glad  tidings  of  salvation.  It  was  the  Infant  Church,  which 
had  made  its  advent  in  the  silence  of  the  night. 

On  the  other  hand,  much  greater  difficulties  were  experi- 


CHRISTIAN  LIFE  IN  APOSTOLIC  TIMES         57 

enced  by  converts  from  paganism  in  readjusting  their  so 
cial  relations.  For  them  to  become  Christians  was,  in  this 
respect,  a  most  momentous  step.  It  practically  meant  entire 
separation  from  ordinary  life.  For  pagan  society  was  so 
permeated  by  superstition,  immorality,  and  idolatrous  prac 
tices,  that  neither  theaters,  nor  public  games,  nor  ordinary 
social  functions  could  in  conscience  be  frequented  by  one  who 
professed  to  be  a  follower  of  Christ.  These,  in  fact,  con 
stituted  the  works  of  Satan  and  his  pomps,  which  every  one 
was  called  upon  to  renounce  on  being  received  into  the  Church. 
In  many  instances  this  would  mean  disruption  of  life  long 
friendships,  breaking  up  of  the  home,  and  exclusion  from  the 
common  civilities  of  life.  In  time,  too,  it  would  lead  to  diffi 
culties  with  the  State;  for  although  the  Jews,  because  of  their 
acknowledged  national  privileges,  were  allowed  to  limit  their 
religious  practices  to  the  worship  of  Jahve,  such  a  favor  was 
not  granted  to  Christian  converts  from  paganism.  In  the 
matter  of  worship  pagan  gods  had  always  been  extremely 
accommodating;  and  hence,  whatever  might  be  their  name  or 
position,  their  clients  were  called  upon,  at  least  occasionally, 
to  take  part  in  the  various  functions  of  the  State  religion. 
What  this  view  of  the  matter,  when  practically  enforced,  meant 
to  the  Christians,  later  persecutions  will  amply  show. 

Such,  then,  was  the  life  of  those  who  received  the  word, 
and  who  tried  in  the  simplicity  of  their  hearts  to  become  other 
Christs.  But  there  were  many  others  who  heard  the  word 
but  received  it  not;  to  whom  the  Saviour  referred  when  He 
said :  "  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  likened  to  a  man  that  sowed 
good  seed  in  his  field.  But  while  men  were  asleep,  his  enemy 
came  and  over-sowed  cockle  among  the  wheat,  and  went  his 
way.  .  And  when  the  blade  was  sprung  up,  and  had  brought 
forth  fruit,  then  appeared  also  the  cockle."  14  How  truly  pro 
phetic  this  parable  of  our  Blessed  Saviour  must  appear  to  one 
who  studies  the  spread  of  the  Gospel !  The  message  contained 
therein  was  indeed  good  seed;  it  was  sown  diligently  in  the 
field  of  the  world;  it  sprang  up  and  brought  forth  excellent 

14  Matt.  13,  26. 


58  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

fruit :  but  mixed  up  with  it  appeared  from  the  very  first  much 
cockle — doctrines  of  men's  making,  false  philosophical  specu 
lations,  "  fables  and  genealogies  without  end,  which  minister 
questions  rather  than  the  edification  of  God  which  is  in  faith." 
The  saying  of  St.  Paul,  that  heresies  must  needs  be,15  was 
fully  verified  during  his  own  life  time  and  that  of  the  other 
Apostles.  It  is  in  these  heretical  vagaries  that  Hellenic  specu 
lations  and  Oriental  mysticism  have  left  their  traces,  rather 
than  in  the  genesis  of  Christian  thought  and  in  the  develop 
ment  of  Christian  doctrines.  A  brief  summary  of  them,  as 
they  appeared  in  Apostolic  times,  will  be  helpful  in  clearing 
up  the  movements  of  orthodox  thought. 

These  early  aberrations  seem  to  have  sprung  from  two 
opposite  tendencies;  one  of  which  was  to  perpetuate  the  ob 
servance  of  the  Mosaic  Law  in  the  New  Covenant,  the  other 
to  force  the  Gospel  contents  into  ready-made  systems  of  phi 
losophy,  partly  Greek  and  partly  Oriental  in  character.  The 
former  tendency  gave  rise  to  Judaic-Christianity,  the  latter  to 
Gnosticism.  Of  Judaic-Christianity,  however,  it  is  not  neces 
sary  to  treat  in  this  connection,  since,  as  an  active  force,  it 
was  short-lived  and  caused  no  real  doctrinal  disturbances.  Its 
first  advocates  were  substantially  orthodox  in  faith,  and  when 
later  on  heretical  elements  found  their  way  into  its  teaching, 
the  party  exercised  only  an  insignificant  local  influence. 
Cerinthus  indeed,  who  denied  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  to 
refute  whom  St.  John  is  said  to  have  written  his  Gospel,  drew 
after  him  a  certain  fojlowing,  but  his  influence  appears  to 
have  been  transient.  The  last  remnants  of  this  heterodox 
Judaic-Christianity  are  found  among  the  Ebionites  and  Naza- 
renes,  who  in  the  second  and  third  centuries  led  an  inactive 
existence  in  Syria  and  Palestine,  and  then  disappeared  from 
history. 

Gnosticism,  on  the  other  hand,  which  appeared  only  in  germ 
during  Apostolic  times,  played  subsequently  a  rather  impor 
tant  part  in  doctrinal  development.  It  seems  to  have  first 
made  its  appearance  under  a  Judaizing  guise,  and  as  such 

15  I   Cor.  ii,  19. 


CHRISTIAN  LIFE  IN  APOSTOLIC  TIMES          59 

reference  is  made  to  it  in  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Colossians, 
in  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  in  the  second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  and 
that  of  St.  Jude,  and  also  in  the  Epistles  and  Apocalypse  of  St. 
John.  Somewhat  later  it  is  again  referred  to  in  the  Letters 
of  St.  Ignatius  and  St.  Polycarp. 

In  his  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  St.  Paul  first  draws  a  mag 
nificent  portrait  of  Christ  the  Redeemer,  the  Son  of  God,  "  in 
whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  the  remission 
of  sins :  who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  first-born  of 
every  creature:  for  in  him  were  all  things  created  in  heaven 
and  on  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  whether  thrones,  or  domina 
tions,  or  principalities,  or  powers :  all  things  were  created  by 
him  and  in  him:  and  he  is  before  all,  and  by  him  all  things 
consist.'*  Then  he  adds :  "  Now  this  I  say,  that  no  man  may 
deceive  you  by  loftiness  of  words."  What  he  understood  by 
this  "  loftiness  of  words,"  he  explains  by  his  further  warnings : 
"  Beware  lest  any  man  cheat  you  by  philosophy,  and  vain 
deceit;  according  to  the  tradition  of  men,  according  to  the 
elements  of  the  world,  and  not  according  to  Christ."  "  Let 
no  man  therefore  judge  you  in  meat  or  drink,  or  in  respect 
of  festival  days,  or  of  the  new  moon,  or  of  the  sabbaths,  which 
are  a  shadow  of  the  things  to  come,  but  the  body  is  Christ's. 
Let  no  man  seduce  you,  willing  in  humility,  and  religion  of 
angels,  walking  in  the  things  which  he  hath  not  seen,  in  vain 
puffed  up  by  the  sense  of  his  flesh,  and  not  holding  the  head, 
from  which  the  whole  body,  by  joints  and  bands  being  sup 
plied  with  nourishment  and  compacted,  groweth  unto  the  in 
crease  of  God.  If  then  you  be  dead  with  Christ  from  the 
elements  of  this  world;  why  do  you  yet  decree  as  living  in 
the  world?  Touch  not,  taste  not,  handle  not:  which  all  are 
unto  destruction  by  the  very  use,  according  to  the  precepts  and 
doctrines  of  men.  Which  things  have  indeed  a  show  of  wis 
dom  in  superstition  and  humility,  and  not  sparing  the  body, 
not  in  any  honor  to  the  filling  of  the  flesh."  16 

From  this  it  appears  that  there  were  various  tendencies  at 
work  to  depreciate  the  person  of  Christ,  to  set  aside  the  re- 

16  Cfr.  Col.  cc.  i,  2. 


6o  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

demption  which  He  wrought,  and  to  cause  disunion  in  the 
Church.  The  angels  seem  to  have  been  placed  above  Jesus; 
salvation  was  made  dependent  on  various  unseemly  practices, 
in  one  way  or  another  tending  to  an  abuse  of  the  body;  and 
the  purity  of  Christian  worship  was  more  or  less  destroyed  by 
the  observance  of  feasts,  new  moons,  and  sabbaths.  No  defi 
nite  doctrinal  system  is  indicated  as  the  source  of  these  hetero 
dox  practices,  yet  in  the  light  of  later  developments  one  can 
readily  detect  in  them  the  beginnings  of  the  second-century 
Gnostic  heresies. 

In  his  Pastoral  Letters  the  Apostle  is  even  more  severe  in 
condemning  these  disturbers  of  the  Christian  communities. 
He  points  to  Hymenseus,  Philetus,  and  Alexander  the  copper 
smith,  as  drawing  after  them  men  of  "  itching  ears,"  and 
especially  women,  upsetting  their  minds  with  questions  as  silly 
as  they  are  subtle,  and  disseminating  Jewish  fables.  They 
inculcate  abstinence  from  marriage  and  from  certain  kinds  of 
food,  and  teach  that  there  is  no  other  resurrection  than  that 
from  sin.  Morally  these  men  are  utterly  corrupt,  seeking  only 
for  gain.  "  They  profess  that  they  know  God,  but  in  their 
hearts  they  deny  Him,  being  abominable,  and  incredulous,  and 
to  every  good  work  reprobate."  17 

Those  referred  to  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Jude 
seem  to  have  been  of  the  same  kind :  for  they  "  deny  our  only 
Master  and  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  despise  authority  and  reject 
the  doctrine  of  the  judgment  and  the  Lord's  coming.  Their 
morals  are  infamous :  they  blaspheme  what  they  do  not  under 
stand,  and  are  beastly  in  their  conduct.18 

St.  John,  when  speaking  of  these  or  similar  heretics,  charac 
terizes  their  doctrine  as  "  the  depth  of  Satan."  They  claim 
to  be  apostles  and  Jews,  but  they  are  of  the  synagogue  of  the 
devil.  They  teach  chiefly  unchastity,  and  the  lawfulness  of 
eating  meats  offered  to  idols.19  In  his  First  Epistle  he  says 
there  are  many  antichrists,  who  have  come  from  the  ranks  of 
Christians.  They  deny  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  and  the  Son. 
They  are  liars:  and  by  denying  the  Son,  they  have  not  the 

17  I  Tim.  i,  20;  6,  5-10 ;  II  Tim.          18Jude,  4,  8,  10;  II  Pet.  2,  3-14. 
2,  17,  18;  4,  6;  Tit.  i,  11,  15,  16.  19Apoc.  2,  9,  14-25;  3,  9- 


CHRISTIAN  LIFE  IN  APOSTOLIC  TIMES         61 

Father.  "  Every  spirit  which  confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  of  God:  and  every  spirit  that  dissolveth 
Jesus,  is  not  of  God :  and  this  is  the  Antichrist."  20 

In  what  sense  precisely  these  false  teachers  denied  that 
"  Jesus  is  the  Christ  and  the  Son,"  and  that  "  Jesus  Christ 
is  come  in  the  flesh,"  is  not  clear;  but  the  most  probable  infer 
ence  is  that  they  regarded  Him  as  purely  human,  and  thereby 
denied  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation.  How  these  first  at 
tempts  of  turning  Christian  thought  into  heterodox  channels, 
and  incidentally  also  of  corrupting  the  purity  of  Christian 
morals,  gradually  developed  into  full-fledged  Gnosticism,  we 
shall  have  occasion  to  point  out  when  studying  the  doctrinal 
development  that  was  going  on  during  the  second  century. 
Here  are  the  germs. 

2«I  John,  2,  18-23;  4,  2,  3,  15- 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  WRITINGS  AND  TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC 
FATHERS  i 

By  Apostolic  Fathers,  in  this  connection,  are  understood  the 
authors  of  certain  early  Christian  writings,  generally  orthodox 
in  tone  and  teaching  but  not  inspired,  which  were  produced  in 
Apostolic  or  sub-Apostolic  times,  ranging,  roughly  speaking, 
from  the  last  decade  of  the  first  to  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  The  writings  in  question  are  nine  in  number,  but 
the  authors  of  only  five  of  them  are  known.  These  are :  St. 
Clement  of  Rome,  St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  St.  Polycarp  of 
Smyrna,  St.  Papias  of  Hierapolis  in  Phrygia,  and  Hernias  the 
brother  of  Pope  Pius  I.  For  the  sake  of  clearness  it  seems 
advisable  to  divide  our  review  of  these  rather  important  docu 
ments  into  two  sections.  In  the  first  we  shall  give  some  gen 
eral  information  regarding  each  document,  together  with  a 
brief  analysis  of  its  contents;  and  in  the  second  we  shall  group 
the  dogmatic  teaching  of  the  several  authors  under  a  number 
of  conventional  headings,  corresponding  more  or  less  to  the 
treatises  usually  studied  in  our  modern  schools  of  theology. 

A — THE  WRITINGS  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

Geographically  and  chronologically  the  writings  of  the 
Apostolic  Fathers  may  be  arranged  in  the  following  order, 
although  some  authors  prefer  a  different  arrangement: 

i°.  The  Didache;  or,  the  Doctrine  of  the  Twelve  Apostles. — 
According  to  Bardenhewer,  Funk,  Zahn,  Sabatier,  and  the 
majority  of  critics,  this  little  treatise  appeared  in  the  last 

1  Cf r.  Bardenhewer,  Patrology,  Funk,  Patres  Apostolici ;  Tixeront, 
19-43,  English  Translation  by  Thos.  History  of  Dogmas,  I,  104.  Batif- 
J.  Shahan  ;  Geschichte  der  Altkirch-  f  ol,  Primitive  Catholicism ;  *  Durell, 
lichen  Litteratur,  I,  76-146;  F.  X.  The  Historic  Church,  11-128. 

62 


WRITINGS  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS        63 

decade  of  the  first  century,  most  likely  in  Palestine  or  Syria. 
It  is  now  usually  regarded  as  authentic,  with  the  exception  of 
two  verses  (i,  3;  2,1),  which,  however,  have  no  direct  dog 
matic  value.  It  seems  to  have  been  intended  as  a  catechetical 
instruction,  the  contents  of  which  are  gathered  around  three 
main  points :  Moral  Conduct,  Church  Discipline,  and  Escha- 
tology. 

The  part  dealing  with  moral  conduct  (1-6)  begins  with 
the  sentence :  "  There  are  two  ways,  the  way  of  life  and  the 
way  of  death,  but  there  is  a  great  difference  between  the 
two."  Then  it  is  pointed  out  what  must  be  done  to  remain  in 
the  way  of  life,  which  is  practically  a  development  of  the  gen 
eral  proposition  announced  in  the  second  sentence :  "  This  is 
the  way  of  life:  First,  love  God,  who  created  thee;  then, 
love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself:  and  whatever  you  do  not  wish 
that  it  should  be  done  to  you,  neither  do  it  to  another."  The 
exposition  and  practical  application  of  this  general  law  of 
Christian  conduct  takes  up  the  first  four  chapters.  In  the 
following  two,  5  and  6,  the  way  of  death  is  described.  This 
is  chiefly  done  by  pointing  out  the  various  crimes  against  the 
Decalogue,  and  in  particular  those  referred  to  by  St.  Paul  in 
his  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  The  author  ends  with  a  warning 
against  false  teachers  and  the  eating  of  meats  that  have  been 
sacrificed  to  idols. 

The  second  part,  dealing  with  Church  discipline,  begins  with 
directions  in  reference  to  the  administration  of  baptism,  for 
which  the  Trinitarian  formula  is  prescribed.  Ordinary  Chris 
tian  practices  are  touched  upon  in  chapter  8,  where  the  faithful 
are  told  to  fast  on  Wednesdays  and  Fridays,  and  to  recite 
the  Lord's  Prayer  three  times  a  day.  Chapters  9  and  10  give 
the  prayers  to  be  said  at  the  agape,  during  which,  according 
to  the  more  common  interpretation,  bread  and  wine  were 
consecrated  and  distributed  to  the  faithful.  The  same  matter 
is  again  taken  up  in  chapter  14,  where  it  is  enjoined  to  celebrate 
the  divine  mysteries  on  Sundays.  In  connection  with  this, 
the  following  chapter  (15)  contains  directions  for  the  appoint 
ment  of  bishops  and  deacons,  whose  office  it  is  to  offer  the 
Christian  sacrifice  and  to  instruct  the  faithful.  Apostles, 


64  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

prophets,  and  teachers  are  also  mentioned,  and  rules  are  given 
to  distinguish  the  true  from  the  false. 

The  third  part,  which  takes  up  the  last  chapter,  treats  almost 
exclusively  of  eschatological  topics.  The  faithful  are  ex 
horted  to  come  frequently  together,  in  order  to  take  counsel 
concerning  their  spiritual  welfare  and  protect  themselves 
against  false  prophets,  of  whom  there  will  appear  many  in 
the  last  days. 

2°.  The  Epistle  of  Barnabas;  or,  The  Pseudo-Barnabas. — 
The  time  of  its  composition  is  not  certain.  Bardenhewer, 
Funk,  Hilgenfeld,  Weiszaecker,  Cunningham,  Lightfoot,  and 
many  others,  assign  as  its  latest  possible  date  the  close  of  the 
first  century,  immediately  after  the  reign  of  Nerva  (96-98). 
Harnack  is  non-committal.  The  home  of  the  author,  accord 
ing  to  the  more  common  view,  was  Alexandria  in  Egypt. 
Some  few  scholars  still  defend  this  so-called  Epistle  as  the 
work  of  Barnabas  the  Apostle,  but  their  view  seems  to  be 
untenable. 

Aside  from  the  introduction,  the  work  is  divided  into  two 
very  unequal  parts;  the  first  comprising  seventeen  chapters 
and  the  second  four.  In  the  first  part  a  decided  antagonism 
is  shown  to  the  Old  Testament,  especially  in  its  literal  interpre 
tation  as  understood  by  the  Jews.  So  interpreted  the  author 
regards  it  as  the  work  of  the  devil.  Hence  his  purpose  is  to 
draw  Christian  believers  away  from  it,  and  thus  to  perfect 
them  in  the  true  knowledge  of  the  faith  as  derived  from  the 
more  spiritual  preaching  of  the  Apostles.  His  own  interpre 
tation  of  the  Old  Testament  is  consistently  allegorical,  assign 
ing  throughout  an  exclusively  spiritual  meaning  to  the  various 
ordinances  and  enactments  of  the  Mosaic  Law.  The  second 
part  is  little  more  than  an  adaptation  of  the  Two  Ways  de 
scribed  in  the  Didache. 

3°.  The  Prima  dementis;  or,  The  First  Letter  of  Clement 
to  the  Corinthians. —  According  to  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccl.  3, 
15,  34),  Clement  was  the  third  successor  of  St.  Peter,  and 
sat  in  the  pontifical  chair  from  92  to  101.  There  is,  however, 
a  tradition  according  to  which  he  followed  St.  Peter  immedi 
ately.  If  this  latter  view  be  adopted,  the  date  of  the  letter 


WRITINGS  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS        65 

falls  somewhere  between  67  and  80.  In  either  case  it  must 
be  regarded  as  a  first  century  document. 

Modern  scholars  are  generally  agreed  that  this  letter  is  a 
model  Pastoral,  simple  in  style,  cogent  in  argument,  and  full 
of  fatherly  solicitude  for  the  welfare  of  the  Church.  It  con 
sists  of  an  introduction,  two  main  divisions,  and  a  recapitula 
tion.  In  the  introduction  the  author  first  expresses  his  regret 
that  the  late  persecution  prevented  him  from  writing  sooner, 
and  then  depicts  in  an  eloquent  manner  the  former  prosperous 
condition  of  the  Corinthian  church  and  its  present  miserable 
state  (1-3).  In  the  first  part  (4-36)  he  lays  down  general 
principles,  gives  instructions  and  admonitions,  warns  against 
envy  and  jealousy,  and  strongly  recommends  the  practice  of 
humility,  obedience,  and  penance ;  all  of  which  he  enforces  by 
examples  taken  from  the  Old  Testament.  Then,  in  the  second 
part  (37-61),  he  passes  over  to  the  troubles  that  are  disturbing 
the  church  at  Corinth.  Here  he  treats  of  the  hierarchy,  its 
institution,  mode  of  perpetuation,  and  authority  over  the  faith 
ful.  He  emphasizes  the  necessity  of  subjection  on  the  part 
of  the  people,  urges  all  to  practice  mutual  charity,  and  calls 
upon  the  disturbers  to  do  penance  and  to  submit.  In  the  re 
capitulation  (62-65)  he  runs  over  the  contents  of  the  letter, 
recommends  his  messengers  to  the  good  will  of  the  Corinthians, 
and  ends  with  a  beautiful  liturgical  prayer. 

4°.  The  Seven  Letters  of  Ignatius  of  Antioch. — Addressed 
respectively,  Ad  Ephesios,  Ad  Magnesios,  Ad  Trallianos,  Ad 
Romanos,  Ad  Philadelphenses,  Ad  Smyrnaeos,  Ad  Polycar- 
pum.  St.  Ignatius  was  the  second  successor  of  St.  Peter  in 
the  see  of  Antioch  in  Syria.  He  was  martyred  in  Rome  dur 
ing  the  reign  of  Trajan  (98-117),  but  the  exact  year  of  his 
death  is  not  known.  He  wrote  the  first  four  letters  at  Smyrna 
and  the  last  three  at  Troas,  whilst  on  his  way  to  Rome,  a 
captive  for  the  faith. 

These  letters,  whose  authenticity  is  no  longer  called  in  ques 
tion  with  any  show  of  reason,  are  justly  regarded  as  the  most 
precious  heirloom  of  Christian  antiquity.  They  are  original 
in  thought,  powerful  in  diction,  glowing  with  charity,  and 
crowded  with  doctrinal  instruction.  Regarding  this  last  point 


66  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

Cardinal  Newman  did  not  hesitate  to  say  that  "  the  whole 
system  of  Catholic  doctrine  may  be  discovered,  at  least  in 
outline,  not  to  say  in  parts  filled  up,  in  the  course  of  these 
seven  epistles."  2  And  this  is  no  exaggeration.  The  sover 
eignty  and  majesty  of  God,  the  Incarnation  and  redemption, 
the  visibility,  unity,  and  catholicity  of  the  Church,  the  real 
presence  of  the  Saviour  in  the  Eucharist,  the  various  means 
of  sanctification  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  the  virtues  that  must 
adorn  the  Christian  life,  and  many  other  topics  are  dealt  with 
in  the  author's  own  unique  way.  As  Tixeront  has  well  pointed 
out  in  his  "  History  of  Dogmas,"  the  dogmatic  teaching  of 
Ignatius  is  chiefly  gathered  around  three  points :  Christ,  the 
Church,  Christian  Life.3  Not  that  there  is  any  attempt  to 
present  a  carefully  thought  out  theological  system,  but  the 
needs  of  the  various  churches  to  which  the  author  wrote 
called  for  suggestions  along  these  lines. 

5°.  The  Fragments  of  the  Writings  of  St.  Papias.  —  It  is 
commonly  held  that  Papias  was  in  his  youth  a  disciple  of  St. 
John  the  Evangelist.  Later  on  he  became  bishop  of  Hiera- 
polis  in  Phrygia.  He  seems  to  have  died  about  the  year  150, 
but  at  what  particular  date  he  composed  the  book  of  which 
these  few  fragments  have  been  preserved  is  a  matter  of  con 
jecture.  What  remains  of  his  writings  is  of  no  special  dog 
matic  value,  except  in  so  far  as  it  gives  us  some  information 
regarding  the  expected  Millennium  and  the  origin  of  the  Gos 
pels  according  to  St.  Mark  and  St.  Matthew. 

6°.  The  Letter  of  St.  Poly  car  p. — Polycarp  also  was  in  his 
youth  a  disciple  of  St.  John,  and  by  him  was  made  bishop  of 
Smyrna  in  Asia  Minor.  He  was  martyred  in  his  own  epis 
copal  city,  February  23,  155,  in  the  eighty-sixth  year  of  his 
life.  The  year  before  his  death  he  had  paid  a  visit  to  Rome, 
in  order  to  confer  with  Pope  Anicetus  about  the  time  when 
Easter  should  be  celebrated.  They  did  not  come  to  an  under 
standing  on  this  point,  but  preserved  the  harmony  of  faith  and 
charity.  During  his  stay  in  Rome,  as  St.  Irenaeus  relates,  he 
one  day  met  the  heretic  Marcion,  who  asked  him,  do  you 

2  Theology  of  the  Seven  Epistles  of   St.  Ignatius,  Historical  Sketches. 
SH.  D.  I,  122. 


WRITINGS  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS        67 

know  me?  "  Surely,  I  know  the  first-born  of  Satan,"  was 
Polycarp's  forceful  reply,  thereby  indicating  his  abhorrence  of 
all  heresy  and  schism. 

He  wrote  his  letter  at  the  request  of  the  church  of  Philippi 
in  Macedonia,  the  presbyters  of  which  had  sent  him  word 
about  Ignatius  and  in  turn  begged  him  for  a  copy  of  the  mar 
tyr's  letters,  together  with  a  word  of  advice  from  himself. 
This  request  alone,  he  states,  emboldened  him  to  write  to  a 
church  that  had  been  founded  by  the  great  Apostle  Paul,  from 
whom  also  they  had  received  an  Epistle  whilst  he  was  laboring 
in  distant  parts.  Then,  after  some  general  remarks,  he  ad 
monishes  and  advises  the  different  classes  of  the  faithful; 
married  women  and  widows,  young  men  and  women,  deacons 
and  priests.  Next  he  refers  to  the  sad  fall  of  a  certain  Valens, 
a  presbyter,  whom  avarice  had  led  into  evil  ways,  and  he  begs 
them  that  by  prayer  and  charity  they  may  endeavor  to  bring 
him  back  to  the  Church.  In  conclusion  he  promises  to  send 
the  message  of  the  Philippians  about  Ignatius  to  Antioch, 
says  that  he  will  forward  to  them  copies  of  all  the  letters  he 
has  in  his  possession,  and  begs  for  further  news  about  the 
martyr  if  perchance  they  should  receive  any.  Hence  the  letter 
must  have  been  written  shortly  after  the  martyrdom  of  Igna 
tius.  Several  passages  show  that  the  author  was  familiar  with 
Clement's  letter  to  the  Corinthians. 

7°.  The  Martyrium  Polycarfyi,  an  account  of  the  martyrdom 
of  the  saintly  bishop  of  Smyra.  Issued  by  the  authorities  of 
that  church,  it  was  intended  for  the  different  Christian  com 
munities  in  Asia  Minor,  where  Polycarp  was  held  in  great 
veneration.  It  was  written  in  155  or  156.  The  inscription 
runs  thus :  "  The  Church  of  God  which  is  sojourning  at 
Smyrna  to  the  Church  of  God  that  sojourns  at  Philomelium, 
and  to  all  the  communities  of  the  Holy  and  Catholic  Church 
in  every  place."  It  contains  several  points  of  considerable 
dogmatic  value,  which  will  be  brought  out  in  the  second  part 
of  this  chapter. 

8°.  The  Shepherd  of  Hermas. — Hermas  composed  his  work 
at  Rome  during  the  Pontificate  of  his  brother,  Pius  I,  who 
was  Pope  from  140  to  154.  Early  writers  usually  identified 


68  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

him  with  Hermas,  the  disciple  of  St.  Paul,  but  the  Muratorian 
Fragment  determines  his  date  and  identity  as  here  given. 

This  treatise  has  been  aptly  called  "  a  vast  examination  of 
conscience  of  the  church  of  Rome,"  because  in  it  the  author 
lays  bare  with  unsparing  hand  the  many  shortcomings,  vacil 
lations,  and  sins  of  the  Roman  Christians,  both  lay  and  cleric, 
and  proposes  the  serious  practice  of  penance  as  the  only 
remedy  that  can  cure  these  evils.  Hence  in  concept  and  pur 
pose  it  is  a  treatise  on  penance,  although  incidentally  other 
matters  are  also  touched  upon  and  explained. 

The  work  is  apocalyptic  in  character,  and  derives  its  exhorta- 
tory  force  from  the  supposed  divine  inspiration  of  the  author 
and  the  command  he  received  from  God  to  set  forth  the  revela 
tions  vouchsafed  him  for  the  good  of  the  Church.  It  consists 
of  five  Visiones,  twelve  Mandata,  and  ten  Similitudines.  In 
reference,  however,  to  the  contents,  the  treatise  is  divided  into 
two  parts.  The  first  of  these  comprises  the  first  four  Visiones, 
in  which  the  Church  appears  in  the  form  of  a  matron,  giving 
the  author  various  instructions.  The  second  part  is  made  up 
of  the  fifth  Visio,  in  which  the  Angel  of  Penance  appears 
under  the  guise  of  a  shepherd,  and  entrusts  to  him  a  number 
of  mandata  to  be  made  known  to  the  Church.  It  is  from 
this  last  part  that  the  whole  work  has  received  the  name  of 
"  The  Shepherd." 

9°.  The  Secunda  dementis;  or,  the  Second  Letter  of  Clem 
ent  to  the  Corinthians. —  This  document  was  by  most  ancient 
writers  ascribed  to  Clement  of  Rome,  but  since  the  discovery 
of  the  entire  text,  or  rather  its  publication  in  1875,  it  has 
been  shown  to  be  a  homily,  which  was  produced  at  Corinth 
towards  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  Who  the  author 
was  is  not  known.  Its  contents  are  of  a  somewhat  varied 
character,  though  the  main  purpose  of  the  preacher  seems  to 
have  been  to  exhort  his  hearers  to  the  practice  of  penance. 

Taken  geographically,  these  nine  documents  represent  almost 
the  whole  Church  during  the  half  century  to  which  they  belong. 
Their  importance,  therefore,  in  reference  to  the  History  of 
Dogmas  is  obvious.  It  must,  however,  be  borne  in  mind  that 
not  one  of  these  writers  purposes  to  give  a  complete  exposition 


WRITINGS  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS        69 

of  Christian  doctrine.  They  touch  upon  various  doctrinal 
points  in  a  merely  casual  way,  being  primarily  intent  upon 
exhorting  their  readers  or  hearers  to  the  practice  of  virtue. 
Hence  to  infer  from  their  writings  that  nothing  was  taught 
in  those  days  except  what  they  explicitly  state,  as  is  frequently 
done  by  modern  critics,  is  as  foolish  as  it  is  unfair. 

B  —  TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

From  what  sources  the  Apostolic  Fathers  drew  the  con 
tents  of  their  teaching  is  sufficiently  evident  from  their  own 
works.  They  appealed  both  to  Scripture  and  tradition.  Be 
sides  the  various  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  of  which  they 
make  frequent  use,  they  also  cite,  though  less  frequently,  nearly 
all  the  writings  that  are  now  contained  in  the  New.  In  these 
sources  they  find  the  word  of  God,  made  known  to  men  by 
the  Spirit  of  Truth.  This  same  Spirit  also  guides  the  Church 
in  carrying  on  her  divine  mission  of  teaching  all  nations,  so 
that  her  voice  is  none  other  than  the  voice  of  Christ.  Indeed 
for  practical  purposes  the  teaching  of  the  Church  is  supreme; 
for  it  is  she  who  breathes  the  living  spirit  into  the  dead  letter 
of  the  written  word,  and  thus  makes  it  available  for  Christ's 
flock  entrusted  to  her  shepherding. 

This  last  thought  is  especially  emphasized  by  St.  Ignatius, 
whose  efforts  to  ward  off  heresy  and  schism  compelled  him  in 
a  manner  to  set  down  his  views  on  the  matter  in  question. 
Thus  writing  to  the  church  at  Philadelphia,  he  says :  "  When 
I  heard  some  of  them  saying :  '  Unless  I  find  it  in  the  archives, 
that  is,  in  the  gospels,  I  do  not  believe  it,'  and  I  told  them 
that  it  was  so  written,  they  answered :  '  This  is  to  be  proved.' 
But  to  me  Jesus  Christ  is  the  archive."  4  And  again  to  the 
church  of  Ephesus :  ''  Jesus  Christ,  our  inseparable  life,  is 
the  thought  of  the  Father,  as  also  the  bishops,  all  the  world 
over,  are  in  agreement  with  the  mind  of  Jesus  Christ."  5  And 
to  the  church  at  Smyrna :  "  Where  the  bishop  shall  appear, 
there  let  the  people  also  be;  as  where  Jesus  Christ  is,  there 
is  the  Catholic  Church."  Q  Thus  presided  over  by  the  bishops, 

*  Philad.  8,  2.  6  Smyrn.  8,  2. 

5  Eph.  3,  2. 


70  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

the  Church  is  an  incorruptible  teacher;  for  Christ  has  made 
her  incorruptible.7  Hence  "  He  has  set  up  through  His  resur 
rection,  in  all  ages,  a  standard  for  the  saints  and  for  His 
followers,  whether  they  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  in  the  one  body 
of  His  Church."  8 

In  the  following  brief  summary  of  the  teaching  of  the 
Apostolic  Fathers  no  attempt  will  be  made  to  construct  any 
thing  like  a  theological  system,  but  it  will  be  very  helpful  to 
gather  their  incidental  statements  and  elucidations  of  doctrinal 
points  under  the  same  headings  that  form  the  main  divisions 
of  systematic  theology  as  it  is  taught  in  our  schools  to-day. 
This  will  enable  us  to  make  some  sort  of  comparison  between 
what  is  held  at  present  and  what  we  here  find  to  have  been 
held  in  the  distant  past.  The  chief  points  to  be  considered 
are  the  following : 

i°.  God  and  His  Relation  to  the  World. —  All  these  writers 
either  expressly  state  or  obviously  imply  that  there  is  only 
one  God,  who  transcends  the  world  of  finite  beings,  and  has 
nothing  in  common  with  the  false  gods  of  pagan  mythology. 
He  is  the  creator  of  all  things,  the  source  of  all  blessings,  the 
one  object  of  all  true  worship.  "  First  of  all  believe,"  says 
Hermas,  "  that  there  is  one  God,  who  created  and  consummated 
all  that  is,  and  out  of  nothing  caused  all  things  to  be.  He 
comprehends  all,  though  He  Himself  is  incomprehensible."  9 
"  Do  we  not  have  one  God,"  asks  Clement,  "  and  one  Christ, 
and  one  Spirit  of  grace  poured  out  upon  us,  and  one  calling 
in  Christ?  "  10  "  This  is  the  way  of  life,"  explains  the  author 
of  the  Didache,  "  first,  love  God,  who  created  thee." n 
"  The  Prophets,  inspired  by  the  grace  of  Christ,"  writes  Igna 
tius,  "  suffered  persecutions  for  the  purpose  of  convincing 
the  incredulous  that  there  is  one  God,  who  manifested  Himself 
through  Jesus  Christ  His  Son."  12  "  This  God,"  again  argues 
Clement,  "  has  established  all  things  by  the  word  of  His 
majesty  and  by  His  word  he  can  destroy  them  all."  13  Yet 

7  Eph.  17,  i.  11  Didache  i,  2. 

8  Smyrn.  i,  2.  i2  Magn.  8,  2. 

9  Mandat.  i,  i.  i3  I  Clem.  27,  4. 
1°  I  Clem.  46,  6. 


TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS        71 

He  is  not  only  a  God  of  power,  but  also  of  merciful  kindness, 
who  is  faithful  to  His  promises  and  ever  ready  to  receive 
back  the  erring.14  It  is  a  thoroughly  Christian  concept,  based 
upon  the  teaching  of  Holy  Scripture.  So  impressed  is  the 
author  with  the  greatness  and  goodness  of  God,  that  ever  and 
anon  there  flows  spontaneously  from  his  pen  the  doxology, 
"  to  whom  be  glory,  world  without  end.  Amen." 

And  what  Clement,  Hernias',  Ignatius,  and  the  author  of  the 
Didache  thus  express  in  so  many  words,  all  the  others  pre 
suppose  or  imply  as  a  belief  that  is  held  by  every  true  follower 
of  Christ.  Hence  when  Polycarp  was  already  bound  to  the 
stake,  he  ended  his  long  prayer  for  friend  and  foe  with  the 
sublime  words :  "  Wherefore  I  praise  Thee  in  all  things,  I 
bless  Thee,  I  glorify  Thee  through  the  eternal  and  heavenly 
high  priest  Jesus  Christ,  Thy  beloved  Son,  through  whom 
be  glory  to  Thee  together  with  Him  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  now 
and  through  all  future  ages.  Amen." 

This  firm  and  universal  belief  of  these  early  Christians  in 
the  unity  and  transcendence  of  God,  and  in  His  loving  solici 
tude  for  the  creatures  of  His  hands,  is  a  point  that  deserves 
the  most  careful  consideration  in  the  History  of  Dogmas. 
Not  only  is  it  the  foundation  upon  which  Christianity  was 
conceived  to  rest,  but  it  also  holds  the  key  to  the  expressions 
used  by  these  same  writers  in  reference  to  the  divinity  of 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  Paganism  confounded  the  deity 
with  the  world,  and  as  a  result  it  made  gods  of  its  own  dead 
heroes;  Christianity,  on  the  other  hand,  separated  God  from 
the  world,  in  the  sense  that  it  conceived  God's  being  as  standing 
absolutely  by  itself,  and  therefore  as  absolutely  unapproach 
able  by  any  other  being,  no  matter  with  what  extraordinary 
perfections  it  might  be  endowed.  Between  God  and  man  these 
early  Christians  saw  a  chasm  that  nothing  could  bridge.  Men 
might  become  godlike,  but  in  no  sense  could  they  become  gods. 
It  is  precisely  in  this  that  men  like  Harnack  make  a  funda 
mental  mistake.  Because  Christianity  was  propagated  in  a 
pagan  world,  therefore,  they  infer,  its  concept  of  God  must 
have  been  more  or  less  like  that  of  paganism.15  A  mere  glance 

14  Ibid.  19,  2,  3 ;  29,  i. 

15  Cfr.  Harnack,  Dogmengeschichte  I,  203,  foil. 


72  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

at  these  early  writers  is  quite  sufficient  to  convince  one  of 
the  contrary.  They  one  and  all  echo  the  teaching  of  Holy 
Writ :  "  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  thy  God  is  one  God !  " 

2°.  The  Divinity  of  Christ. — Although  God  was  thus  con 
ceived  as  absolutely  one,  standing  in  His  essence  wholly  apart 
from  the  world  of  finite  beings,  nevertheless  the  Apostolic 
Fathers  had  no  hesitancy  about  admitting  Christ  also  to  be 
God.  In  regard  to  this  point  they  do  not  all  speak  with  the 
same  clearness  and  precision,  still,  with  the  possible  exception 
of  Hernias,  there  is  not  one  among  them  who  gives  expression 
to  a  different  belief.  The  author  of  the  Didache  usually 
addresses  God  the  Father  "  per  Jesum  puerum  tuum,"  through 
Jesus  thy  servant,  but  as  this  is  a  liturgical  formula,  no  argu 
ment  can  be  drawn  from  it  against  his  belief  in  the  divinity 
of  the  Saviour.16  Nor,  on  the  other  hand,  is  it  a  conclusive 
proof  for  his  belief  in  the  Saviour's  divinity  when  he  calls 
Jesus  the  "  God  of  David."  17  But  when  he  directs  his  readers 
to  baptize  "  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  18  the  presumption  is  that  he  looked  upon 
the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  as  associated  with  the  Father  in 
the  same  Godhead.  For  although  this  is  a  Scriptural  formula, 
nevertheless  we  may  well  assume  that  these  early  Christians 
understood  not  less  clearly  than  we  do  that  a  mere  creature 
could  not  be  associated  with  God  in  the  solemn  rite  of  Chris 
tian  initiation. 

Clement  also,  when  using  liturgical  formulas,  speaks  of 
Christ  as  the  servant  of  God,19  but  in  other  connections  he 
calls  Him  God's  Son.20  Again,  he  associates  Him  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  with  the  Father  in  the  solemn  formula  of  adjura 
tion  :  "  As  God  liveth,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  liveth,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,  the  faith  and  hope  of  the  elect,  so  shall  they 
who  keep  the  commandments  be  in  the  number  of  those  who 
are  saved  through  Christ." 21  This  formula,  as  Tixeront 
points  out,22  is  equivalent  to  the  Old  Testament  formula,  "  as 

16  Cf  r.  Didache  g,  2,  3.  20  Ibid.  36,  4. 

117  Ibid.  10,  6.  21  Ibid.  58,  2. 

is  Ibid.  7,  2.  22  H.  D.  I.  108. 

19  I  Clem.  59,  2,  3,  4. 


TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS        73 

the  Lord  liveth,"  so  that  for  Clement  "  the  Lord  "  is  identical 
with  "  God,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  Holy  Spirit." 
Moreover  Clement  applies  to  the  Saviour  the  very  explicit 
declaration  of  divinity  contained  in  the  first  chapter  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  thus  incidentally  making  it  quite  clear 
in  what  sense  he  understands  the  term  "  Son  of  God."  23 

Polycarp  speaks  of  Jesus  Christ  as  "  the  Son  of  God,  our 
eternal  pontiff,24  who  came  in  the  flesh  " ; 25  and  hence  the 
inference  is  that  he  regards  Him  as  a  divine  being.  This 
inference  becomes  quite  certain  when  considered  in  the  light 
of  the  doxology  already  cited  in  a  preceding  paragraph.  For 
there  he  not  only  gives  glory  to  God  the  Father  through  the 
Son,  but  accords  the  same  glory  to  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  to  the  Father,26  which  he  certainly  could  not  have 
done  unless  he  considered  all  three  to  be  truly  God. 

The  "  Martyrium  Polycarpi  "  is  more  explicit.  The  Jews,  it 
seems,  had  spread  a  rumor  to  the  effect  that  the  Smyrnian 
Christians  would  henceforth  worship  Polycarp  instead  of  Jesus 
Christ.  In  answer  to  this  the  Christians  protest  that  such 
a  suggestion  is  absurd,  because,  whilst  they  love  and  venerate 
the  martyrs  as  disciples  and  imitators  of  the  Lord,  they  "  adore 
Christ  as  the  Son  of  God."  27  This  shows  how  well  these 
early  Christians  understood  the  nature  of  Christ's  divine  son- 
ship.  They  conceived  it  as  a  sonship  that  entitled  Him  to 
divine  honors,  simply  because  as  Son  He  necessarily  possessed 
the  same  divine  nature  as  the  Father. 

Pseudo-Barnabas  puts  the  matter  in  an  equally  clear  light. 
"  Jesus,"  he  says,  "  was  not  the  son  of  man,  but  the  Son  of 
God,  made  manifest  in  the  flesh.  And  because  men  would 
call  Christ  the  son  of  David,  hence  David  himself,  fearing  and 
understanding  the  error  of  the  wicked,  prophesied  concerning 
Him :  '  The  Lord  said  to  my  Lord :  Sit  thou  at  my  right 
hand,  until  I  make  thy  enemies  thy  footstool/  .  .  .  Behold 
how  David  calls  Him  his  Lord,  and  not  his  son."  28  Moreover 

23  I  Clem.  36,  2-4.  26  Martyr.  12,  2. 

24  Polyc.  2,  i ;  6,  2.  27  ibid.  17,  3. 

25  Ibid.  7,  i.  28  Barn.  12,  10,  n. 


74  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

it  was  necessary  that  on  His  coming  into  this  world  He  should 
assume  a  body;  for  "if  He  had  not  come  in  the  flesh,  how 
would  men  have  been  able  to  look  at  Him,  as  they  cannot  even 
look  steadily  at  the  rays  of  the  earthly  sun,  which  at  some 
time  shall  cease  to  be  and  is  merely  the  work  of  His  hands  ?  " 
It  was  to  the  Son  that  the  Father  said  at  the  beginning  of  the 
world :  "  Let  us  make  man  to  our  image  and  likeness."  29 

We  find  the  same  definite  statements  in  the  letters  of  Igna 
tius.  Not  only  does  he  call  Christ  "  my  God," 30  "  our 
God  " ; 31  but  simply  "  God,"  and  even  "  the  God,"  (Tov  ©cov) 
thus  using  the  article,  upon  which  modern  critics  place  so 
much  emphasis  in  this  matter.32  Again,  he  states  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Word  of  God,33  who  "  before  all  ages  was  with 
the  Father,"34  that  His  blood  is  the  blood  of  God,35  and 
that  He  raised  Himself  by  His  own  power  from  the  dead.36 
In  fact,  so  definite  is  the  author  in  his  declaration  of  Christ's 
true  divinity  that  it  is  hard  to  see  how  he  might  have  ex 
pressed  himself  more  forcibly.  And  yet  modern  Rationalists 
are  not  satisfied.  They  say  that  in  other  places  Ignatius  speaks 
of  Jesus  as  the  "  Son  of  man  and  of  God,"  as  being  "  of  God 
and  of  Mary,"  as  "  the  Son  of  God  according  to  the  will  and 
power  of  God,37  as  if  he  attributed  the  Godhead  of  Christ  to 
His  miraculous  birth,  thus  taking  the  term,  "  Son  of  God," 
in  an  improper  sense.  They  entirely  overlook  the  fact  that 
according  to  Ignatius  Jesus  is  the  "  Son  of  God  and  of  man  " 
because  He  is  God  Incarnate. 

The  Secunda  dementis  is  hardly  less  clear  and  definite  on 
this  point.  At  the  very  beginning  of  his  discourse,  the 
preacher  tells  his  audience :  "  Brethren,  we  ought  so  to  think 
of  Jesus  Christ  as  of  God,  as  the  judge  of  the  living  and  the 
dead."  38  Harnack  regards  this  as  undecisive,  suggesting  that 
the  author  called  Christ  God  simply  because  of  His  position 
in  the  economy  of  salvation.39  But  how  far  this  subtile  dis- 

29  Ibid.  5,  10 ;  5,  5-  34Ibid.  6,  I. 

30  Rom.  6,  3.  85  Ephes.  I,  I. 

31  Ibid.  3,  3;  Ephes.  15,  3;  Polyc.          36  Smyrn.  2,  I. 

8,  3.  S7  Ibid,  i,  i ;  Ephes.  20,  2. 

82  Smyrn.  i,  I.  38  II  Clem,  i,  i. 

38  Magti.  8,  2.  39  Op.  cit.  206,  notes  3,  4. 


TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS        75 

tinction  was  from  the  author's  mind  appears  with  sufficient 
clearness  from  the  fact  that  he  introduces  Christ's  own  words 
with  the  formula :  "  God  said,"  40  that  he  makes  Jesus  not 
only  the  Redeemer  but  also  the  Creator  of  the  world,41  that 
he  refers  to  the  Saviour  as  the  object  of  our  worship,42  and 
repeatedly  speaks  of  Him  as  if  He  were  the  only  Lord  and 
God  in  heaven  and  on  earth;43  all  of  which,  strange  to  say, 
Harnack  himself  admits  a  few  lines  further  on. 

The  only  one  of  all  these  writers  who  is  unsatisfactory  in 
his  statements  concerning  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  Hermas. 
He  holds,  indeed,  that  the  Son  is  truly  God,  but  by  the  Son 
he  appears  to  understand  the  Holy  Spirit.44  The  divinity  of 
Jesus  he  seems  to  admit  only  in  so  far  as  the  Holy  Ghost  has 
taken  up  His  abode  in  Him,  and  as,  on  account  of  His  merits, 
this  Jesus  was  subsequently  adopted  into  the  divine  family 
circle.45  Some  have  tried  to  read  an  orthodox  meaning  into 
all  this,  but  the  matter  remains  rather  doubtful.  Nor  would 
this  doctrinal  confusion  be  inexplicable.  For  being  a  man  of 
little  education,  as  is  commonly  admitted,  and  relying  largely 
on  his  own  wisdom,  as  appears  from  several  other  places  in 
his  writings,  it  may  be  assumed  that  the  author  simply  misin 
terpreted  the  text  of  St.  Luke,  which  records  the  descent  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  upon  Jesus  at  His  baptism.  Neither  is  it 
difficult  to  understand,  how,  in  spite  of  this  Adoptionist  view, 
the  work  should  have  been  so  highly  esteemed  in  the  early 
Church ;  because,  as  the  author  is  constantly  dealing  in  visions 
and  parables,  his  heterodoxy  on  this  particular  point  might 
easily  enough  escape  detection,  at  least  so  long  as  the  later 
Adoptionist  heresy  had  not  yet  aroused  the  suspicion  of  the 
faithful  in  this  regard. 

3°.  The  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost:  The  Blessed  Trinity. 
— On  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  Hermas  is  most  explicit. 
Not  only  does  he  call  Him  the  Son  of  God,  the  adviser  of  the 
Father,  but  also  the  Creator  of  all  things,46  who  dwells  in  the 

40 II  Clem.  13,  4.  44  Simil.  5,  5 ;  9,  I,  i. 

41  Ibid,  i,  4.  45  Simil.  5,  6,  5,  6,  7;  cfr.  Funk, 

42  Ibid.  2,  2,  3.  PP.  Apost.  ed.  2,  p.  541. 

43  Ibid.  5,  i,  2 ;  8,  2,  4.  46  Simil.  5,  6. 


76  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

faithful  as  the  principle  of  sanctification.47  According  to 
Clement,  He  is  the  Spirit  of  God,  the  author  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  which  therefore  must  be  accepted  as  true.48  He 
is  the  Spirit  of  grace  poured  out  upon  us  all,49  who  is  associated 
with  the  Father  and  the  Son  as  a  witness  to  the  truth  of 
God's  promises.50  Ignatius  refers  to  Him  incidentally  as  being 
instrumental  in  the  sanctification  of  souls,51  and  as  the  Spirit 
who  has  come  from  God  and  knows  the  secrets  of  hearts.52 
Twice  he  mentions  Him  together  with  the  Father  and  the  Son 
as  if  belonging  to  the  same  order  of  being.53  If  we  add  to 
these  texts  the  baptismal  formula  contained  in  the  Didache 
and  the  doxology  of  Polycarp  as  recorded  in  the  "  Martyrium," 
we  have  practically  all  that  bears  either  on  the  divinity  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  or  on  the  mystery  of  the  Blessed  Trinity. 

Modern  critics  usually  point  out  that  all  this  is  so  vague 
as  to  force  upon  us  the  conviction  that  these  writers  had 
no  definite  belief  concerning  the  points  in  question.  That  is 
as  much  of  an  exaggeration  as  the  assertion  of  some  Catholic 
writers  that  the  Apostolic  Fathers  were  as  conversant  with 
the  mystery  of  the  Blessed  Trinity  as  the  great  champions 
of  orthodoxy  during  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  The 
truth  seems  to  lie  midway.  We  find  here  all  the  elements  of 
the  mystery  —  the  unity  of  God,  the  divinity  of  the  Son,  and 
less  clearly  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  together  with  the  coex 
istence  of  three  divine  terms  in  one  Godhead  —  or  the  sub 
stance  of  the  doctrine  qua  factum  mysterii;  but  to  the  com 
bination  of  these  elements,  in  so  far  as  it  involved  any  formal 
investigation  or  led  to  a  theoretical  exposition,  it  is  not  likely 
that  much  attention  was  given  at  the  time.  It  must  be  remem 
bered,  however,  that  these  matters  are  touched  upon  only  in 
passing.  Had  the  writers  undertaken  to  give  us  a  formal 
treatise  on  the  points  in  question,  the  result  would  most  likely 
bear  quite  a  different  aspect. 

4°.  The  Humanity  of  Christ  and  the  Unity  of  Person  in 

47  Ibid.  5i  Eph.  9,  r,  2. 

48  I  Clem.  45,  2,  3.  52  Antioch.  7,  I. 

49  Ibid.  46,  6.  53  Eph.  9)  j ;  Magn.  13,  I. 
so  Ibid.  58,  2. 


TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS        77 

the  Saviour. — That  Christ  was  true  man  is  presupposed  by 
all  these  writers  as  a  matter  of  universal  belief.  He  comes 
from  Abraham  "  according  to  the  flesh,"  54  is  the  "  Son  of 
God  made  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  55  is  "  our  God  Jesus  Christ 
borne  in  the  womb  by  Mary,  of  the  seed  of  David  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  56  Furthermore,  a  few  of  them,  like  Ignatius 
and  Polycarp,  emphasize  this  point  very  strongly  against  the 
Docetae,  who  maintained  that  Christ's  humanity  was  only  a 
semblance  of  human  nature.  "  Jesus  Christ,"  says  Ignatius, 
"  was  truly  a  descendant  of  the  race  of  David  according  to 
the  flesh,  truly  born  of  a  virgin,  and  truly  baptized  by  John, 
that  all  justice  might  be  fulfilled  by  Him ;  for  us  truly  nailed 
to  the  cross  in  His  flesh  under  Pontius  Pilate  and  Herod  the 
Tetrarch."  57  "  He  suffered  truly,  as  He  also  raised  Himself 
truly  from  the  dead,  and  not,  as  some  unbelievers  pretend 
that  He  only  seemed  to  suffer."  58  And  in  the  resurrection 
He  again  took  up  His  body :  "  For  I  know  that  even  after  the 
resurrection  He  was  in  the  flesh,  and  I  believe  that  He  is  so 
now."  59  Polycarp  is  not  less  outspoken.  "  For  every  one," 
he  says,  "  who  does  not  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  came  in  the 
flesh,  is  antichrist :  and  whoso  does  not  confess  the  testimony 
of  the  Cross,  is  of  the  devil ;  and  whoso  wrests  the  sayings  of 
the  Lord  to  his  own  desires  and  says  there  is  to  be  no  resur 
rection  and  no  judgment,  he  is  the  first-born  of  Satan."  60 

Christ,  therefore,  is  true  God  and  true  man;  is  He  then  one 
person  in  two  natures?  This  seems  to  be  assumed  throughout. 
Like  the  Evangelists  and  the  Apostles  before  them,  all  these 
writers  know  only  one  Christ,  who  is  at  the  same  time  the 
Son  of  God  and  the  Redeemer  of  the  world.  "  If  the  Lord," 
asks  Pseudo-Barnabas,  "  bore  sufferings  for  our  soul's  sake, 
seeing  that  He  is  the  Lord  of  the  world,  to  whom  God  said 
in  the  beginning,  '  Let  us  make  man  to  our  image  and  likeness/ 
how  then  did  He  suffer  at  the  hands  of  men?"  And  he 
answers,  it  was  for  this  reason  "  that  it  behooved  Him  to 

54  Clem.  32,  2.  68  Smyrn.  2. 

55  Barn.  12,  10.  59  Smyrn.  3,  i. 

56  Ignat.  Eph.  8,  2.  6°  Polyc.  7,  I. 

57  Smyrn.  1,2;  2. 


78  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

appear  in  the  flesh,  so  as  to  destroy  death  and  show  forth  the 
resurrection  from  the  dead."  61  It  was  not  a  mere  man  who 
suffered  and  died,  but  "  the  Lord  of  the  world,"  who  had 
assumed  a  passible  nature  like  our  own.  "  The  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,"  says  Clement,  "  according  to  the  disposition  of  the 
divine  will,  gave  His  blood  for  us,  His  flesh  for  our  flesh, 
His  soul  for  our  souls."  62 

And  in  this  manner  they  all  reason,  without  ever  giving  the 
slightest  hint  that  they  distinguished  in  Christ  between  the 
man  and  God.  He  is  to  them  one  individual,  at  the  same  time 
God  and  man.  Hence,  although  they  did  not  theorize  on  the 
point,  the  obvious  inference  is  that  they  assumed  such  a  union 
between  the  two  elements  in  Christ  as  would  make  Him  one 
person.  This,  moreover,  appears  almost  to  evidence  from 
the  letters  of  St.  Ignatius,  who  treats  the  matter  somewhat 
more  in  detail.  "  There  is  one  physician,"  he  says,  "  both 
corporal  and  spiritual,  begotten  and  unbegotten,  God  existing  in 
the  flesh,  true  life  in  death,  both  of  Mary  and  of  God,  first 
passible  then  impassible,  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."63  And 
again :  "  Expect  Him  who  is  above  all  time,  the  eternal,  the 
invisible,  for  our  sakes  visible,  the  impalpable,  the  impassible, 
for  our  sakes  passible,  who  has  suffered  in  all  manner  of  ways 
for  our  sakes."  64  What  can  this  possibly  imply  except  the 
unity  of  person  and  the  distinction  of  natures  in  Christ?  The 
author  advances  indeed  no  theory  about  the  nature  of  the 
union,  but  he  expresses  himself  in  a  manner  that  is  justified 
only  on  the  supposition  that  he  considered  it  to  be  hypostatic. 
He  knows  only  one  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  at  the  same  time  God 
and  man.  A  modern  theologian  could  hardly  place  the  matter 
in  a  clearer  light. 

5°.  The  Redemption. — The  purpose  of  Christ's  coming  is 
regarded  by  nearly  all  of  these  writers  as  twofold :  To  bring 
us  the  knowledge  of  God  and  to  deliver  us  from  the  death  of 
sin.  "  This  is  the  way,  beloved,  in  which  we  find  salvation," 
writes  Clement,  "  Jesus  Christ,  the  pontiff  of  our  oblations, 
the  advocate  and  helper  of  our  infirmity.  Through  Him  we 

61  Barn.  5,  5,  6.  63  Eph.  7,  2. 

62  I  Clem.  49,  6.  6*  Polyc.  8,  2. 


TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS        79 

behold  the  heights  of  the  heavens;  .  .  .  through  Him  the 
Lord  willed  that  we  should  taste  immortal  knowledge." 63 
"  Let  us  fix  our  eyes  upon  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  know  how 
precious  it  is  in  the  sight  of  God  His  Father;  it  was  shed  for 
our  salvation  and  brought  the  grace  of  repentance  to  the  whole 
world."  °6  "  Jesus  Christ,"  says  Ignatius,  "  who  is  the  thought 
of  the  Father,  the  truthful  mouth  by  which  the  Father  ex 
presses  Himself,  has  become  for  us  the  knowledge  of  God  and 
our  teacher."  67  "  He  bore  all  His  sufferings  for  our  sakes, 
that  we  might  obtain  salvation;  and  He  truly  suffered,  as 
He  also  truly  raised  Himself  from  the  dead." 68  Even 
Hermas,  who,  as  we  have  seen,  probably  went  astray  on  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  bears  witness  to  the  prevalence  of  this 
view  in  regard  to  Christ's  coming  into  this  sinful  world. 
"  God,"  he  says,  "  planted  a  vineyard,  that  is,  He  created  a 
people,  and  gave  it  to  His  Son ;  and  the  Son  placed  angels  over 
the  people  for  their  protection ;  and  He  Himself  washed  away 
their  sins,  laboring  much  and  sustaining  many  trials;  for  no 
vineyard  can  be  cultivated  without  labor  and  sorrows.  He 
therefore  having  washed  away  the  sins  of  the  people,  showed 
them  the  ways  of  life,  giving  them  a  law  which  He  received 
from  His  Father."  69 

It  is  especially  deserving  of  notice  that  these  writers  are 
perfectly  familiar  with  the  theory  of  vicarious  satisfaction, 
which  modern  critics  usually  consider  as  a  later  development. 
When  Clement  states  that  "  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  according 
to  the  disposition  of  the  divine  will,  gave  His  blood  for  us, 
His  flesh  for  our  flesh,  His  soul  for  our  souls,"  70  he  evidently 
goes  on  the  supposition  that  Christ  was  put  in  our  place,  that 
"  Him  who  knew  no  sin,  for  us  God  hath  made  sin,  that  we 
might  be  made  the  justice  of  God  in  Him,"  as  St.  Paul  ex 
pressed  it  in  his  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  It  is  in 
the  same  sense  that  Ignatius  tells  the  Christians  of  Smyrna: 
"  But  all  things  He  has  suffered  for  our  sakes,  that  we  might 
obtain  salvation."  71 

65  I  Clem.  30,  i,  2.  6»  Simil.  6,  2,  3. 

68  Ibid.  7,  4.  70  i  ciem.  49,  6. 

67  Cfr.  Eph.  3,  2;  17,  2;  Rom.  8,  2.  71  Smyrn.  2. 

68  Smyrn.  2. 


8o  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

This  is  brought  out  with  greater  emphasis  by  Pseudo-Barna 
bas  in  his  reasoning  against  the  Jews.  He  tells  them  that 
they  have  no  cause  to  be  scandalized  at  the  sufferings  and 
shameful  death  of  the  Saviour,  since  these  are  no  sign  of 
His  weakness  but  rather  a  proof  of  the  needs  of  our  sinful 
nature.  "If  the  Son  of  God,  He  who  is  the  Lord  and  shall 
judge  the  living  and  the  dead,  suffered,  it  was  because  He 
wished  to  give  us  life  by  His  stripes."  "  Be  sure  that  the 
Son  of  God  could  not  undergo  sufferings  save  on  our  account ; 
He  gave  His  own  body  as  a  sacrifice  for  our  sins."  "  The 
Lord  willed  to  deliver  His  body  that  by  the  forgiveness  of 
our  sins  we  might  be  sanctified,  which  is  effected  by  the  asper 
sion  of  His  blood;  for  it  is  written:  He  was  wounded  for 
our  iniquities  and  bruised  for  our  sins,  by  His  bruises  we  are 
healed."  "If  He  suffered,  it  was  for  our  souls,  ...  to  de 
stroy  death  and  to  bring  about  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
and  to  fulfill  the  promise  made  to  our  fathers  that  He  would 
prepare  unto  Himself  a  new  people."  72 

6°.  The  Church  of  Christ.  —  In  one  way  or  another,  all 
these  writers  assume  that  the  fruits  of  the  redemption  are 
laid  up  for  the  individual  in  the  Church,  which  was  founded 
by  Christ  and  locally  established  by  the  Apostles  and  their 
disciples.  The  two  who  especially  enlarge  on  this  point  are 
Clement  and  Ignatius,  although  the  others  also  bring  out  the 
same  idea. 

Clement's  teaching  on  the  Church  is  based  on  the  principle 
of  unity  through  authority.  The  Gospel  of  Christ,  he  says, 
has  been  preached  in  the  whole  world,  His  elect  are  every 
where;  they  are  His  people,  a  holy  portion  reserved  to  Him 
self.  They  form  His  body,  and  the  unity  of  that  body  they 
must  ever  preserve.  73  "  Let  us  mark,"  he  tells  the  Corin 
thians,  "  the  soldiers  that  are  enlisted  under  our  rulers,  how 
exactly,  how  readily,  how  submissively,  they  execute  the  orders 
given  them.  All  are  not  eparchs,  or  rulers  of  thousands,  or 
rulers  of  hundreds,  or  rulers  of  fifties,  and  so  forth ;  but  each 

72Cfr.  Barn.  5,  n,  12;  14,  6;  7,  2,         73  I  Clem.  5,  7;  49,  2,  3;  30,  3. 
3;  S,  i,  2,  6,  7;  14,  4;  6,  ii. 


TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS        81 

man  in  his  own  rank  executeth  the  orders  given  by  the  king 
and  his  chief  officers."  74 

For  the  building  up  of  this  body,  Christ  sent  His  Apostles, 
even  as  He  was  sent  by  the  Father.  "  Christ,  therefore,  was 
sent  by  God,  and  the  Apostles  were  sent  by  Christ:  so  both 
were  sent  orderly,  according  to  the  will  of  God."  75  Hence 
the  community  of  the  faithful,  governed  by  proper  authority, 
has  Christ  for  its  founder;  and  therefore  those  who  foment 
schism  set  at  naught  the  divine  ordinances,  they  "  tear  asunder 
the  members  of  Christ."  76 

The  Apostles  in  their  turn,  after  preaching  the  Gospel  in 
country  places  and  in  cities,  chose  men  of  approved  virtue 
and  made  them  bishops  and  deacons,  as  had  already  been 
foreshadowed  in  the  Old  Testament,  where  it  is  said:  I  will 
confirm  their  bishops  in  justice  and  their  deacons  in  faith.77 
And  this  they  did  of  set  purpose,  for  they  well  knew  that 
after  their  death  contention  would  arise  over  the  episcopal 
dignity.  Therefore  they  ordained  that  after  their  going  hence 
other  virtuous  and  holy  men  should  receive  their  ministry. 
And  these,  thus  lawfully  constituted,  cannot,  so  long  as  they 
faithfully  discharge  the  duties  of  their  office,  be  removed  with 
out  grave  fault.78 

From  this  it  appears  that  in  the  matter  of  Church  govern 
ment  three  points  were  quite  clear  to  the  author's  mind: 
First,  that  there  existed  in  the  Church  an  authority  which 
the  faithful  were  bound  in  conscience  to  obey;  secondly,  that 
this  authority  was  derived  through  the  Apostles  from  Christ 
Himself;  thirdly,  that  the  Apostles  themselves  made  provision 
for  its  perpetuation.  All  this  he  assumes  as  well  known,  and 
therefore  he  considers  it  sufficient  to  call  attention  to  it  in 
passing. 

As  regards  the  distribution  of  this  authority,  or  the  various 
grades  of  the  hierarchy,  the  author's  way  of  speaking  is  not 
clear.  He  usually  designates  those  entrusted  with  ecclesi 
astical  functions  as  presbyters,  but  in  one  place  he  dis- 

7*Ibid.  34,  7.  77  ibid.  42,  4;  40,  5. 

76  Ibid.  42,  i,  2.  78  Ibid.  44,  i,  2,  3,  4,  6;  47,  6. 

76  Ibid.  4,  6,  7. 


82  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

tinguishes  them  as  bishops  and  deacons.79  He  also  men 
tions  a  division  into  high  priest,  priests,  and  levites, 
each  class  having  its  own  functions  to  perform.80  It  is 
true,  this  bears  direct  reference  only  to  the  Old  Law,  but 
it  seems  to  suppose  a  similar  division  of  ecclesiastical 
functionaries  in  the  New  Dispensation.  He  likewise  states 
that  at  certain  definite  times  oblations  must  be  made  and 
the  sacred  functions  performed,  and  with  this  the  bishops 
and  deacons  are  entrusted.81  It  seems  that  he  uses  the  term 
"  presbyters  "  as  including  both  bishops  and  priests,  thus  fol 
lowing  the  manner  of  speaking  also  found  in  St.  Paul.  At 
all  events,  these  ecclesiastical  superiors  are  the  guides  of  our 
souls;  they  must  be  obeyed  and  honored.82 

In  this  connection  must  also  be  mentioned  the  author's  testi 
mony  to  the  Primacy  of  Rome  in  the  matter  of  Church  gov 
ernment.  This  is,  indeed,  only  implied,  but  it  is  none  the  less 
forceful  and  clear.  He  puts  himself  obviously  in  the  posi 
tion  of  a  judge,  and  as  such  holding  the  place  of  God.  He  is 
writing  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  looks  for 
obedience  from  those  to  whom  he  directs  his  exhortation.83 
He  regrets  that  circumstances  would  not  allow  him  to  attend 
to  this  matter  before,  but  now  he  will  leave  nothing  undone 
to  bring  about  peace;  and  if  any  there  be  who  will  not  obey 
in  those  things  which  God  commands  through  Him,  they  will 
be  guilty  of  a  grievous  offense  and  run  a  great  risk:  still, 
whatever  be  the  outcome  of  his  intervention,  he  has  done  his 
duty  and  will  be  without  sin  before  God.84 

And  thus,  throughout  the  whole  letter,  he  speaks  as  a  su 
perior  to  his  subjects,  though  always  in  a  fatherly  way.  There 
is  no  hesitancy,  no  weakness,  no  fear  of  unauthorized  intru 
sion  anywhere.  Nor  does  it  make  any  difference  whether 
we  suppose  that  he  was  appealed  to  by  the  church  of  Corinth 
or  not ;  the  very  fact  that  he  proceeds  as  one  who  has  a  right 
to  command  shows  that  he  is  conscious  of  his  authority,  and 
also  that  the  Corinthians  are  supposed  to  recognize  the  legiti- 

79  Ibid.  42,  4.  82  Ibid.  6,  3,  i ;  I,  3. 

80  Ibid.  40,  5.  83  Ibid.  63,  2. 

si  Ibid.  40,  2 ;  44,  4.  8*  Ibid,  i,  i ;  59,  2. 


TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS        83 

macy  of  its  exercise  in  adjusting  their  domestic  difficulties. 
In  this  we  can  clearly  discern  the  fundamental  idea  of  the 
Primacy  of  Rome  as  understood  at  the  present  time. 

According  to  Ignatius  Christ  is  the  "  door  of  the  Father,  by 
which  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  all  the  Prophets,  as 
well  as  the  Apostles  and  the  Church,  did  enter."  Hence  he 
says :  "  Christianity  did  not  believe  in  Judaism,  but  Judaism 
believes  in  Christianity,  in  which  are  gathered  together  all 
those  who  believe  in  God."  85  Christ  "  has  set  up  through 
His  resurrection,  in  all  ages,  a  standard  for  the  saints  and 
for  His  followers,  whether  they  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  in  the 
one  body  of  His  Church."  86  "  Jesus  Christ,  our  inseparable 
life,  is  the  thought  of  the  Father,  as  also  the  bishops,  all 
the  world  over,  are  in  agreement  with  the  mind  of  Jesus 
Christ."  87  Hence  "  where  the  bishop  shall  appear,  there  let 
the  people  also  be;  as  where  Jesus  Christ  is,  there  is  the 
Catholic  Church."88 

The  term  "  Catholic  Church  "  appears  here  for  the  first 
time,  although  the  doctrine  contained  in  it  is  found  in  earlier 
writers  as  well.  As  here  used  it  designates  the  Church  of 
Christ  in  her  universality,  as  spread  over  the  whole  world, 
"  per  tractus  terrae,"  and  including  the  various  local  com 
munities  as  integral  members.  In  this  sense  the  epithet  seems 
to  have  been  in  common  use  at  the  time,  or  at  least  a  little 
later,  as  appears  from  the  "  Martyrium  Polycarpi,"  where  it 
occurs  three  times;  but  in  its  secondary  meaning,  denoting 
opposition  to  heretical  sects,  it  was  probably  not  used  until 
the  latter  part  of  the  second  century.  It  may  be  noted  that 
Ignatius,  although  occasionally  referring  to  the  "  Catholic 
Church,"  is  nevertheless  almost  exclusively  occupied  in  his 
letters  with  the  Church  as  established  in  particular  communi 
ties.  Whatever  he  says  about  Church  government,  the  need 
of  union  among  the  faithful,  or  the  particulars  of  divine  wor 
ship,  is  primarily  intended  for  local  bodies  of  Christians. 
Under  ordinary  circumstances,  and  in  the  ordering  of  its 
daily  life,  each  community  is  guided  by  its  own  ecclesiastical 


85  Philad.  9,  i ;  Magn.  10,  3.  87  Eph.  3,  2. 

86  Smyrn.  i,  2.  88  Smyrn.  8,  2. 


84  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

superiors,  "the  bishop  presiding  in  the  place  of  God,  the 
presbyters  holding  the  place  of  the  Apostolic  college,  and  the 
deacons  having  entrusted  to  them  the  ministry  of  Jesus 
Christ."  89  As  long  as  the  faithful  are  subject  to  this  divinely 
constituted  authority,  they  do  all  things  according  to  the  mind 
of  God. 

The  Church  thus  conceived,  as  universal  in  extension  yet 
localized  in  particular  communities,  is  the  house  of  the  Heav 
enly  Father,  His  family.90  Therein  are  stored  up  the  graces 
of  redemption,  which  are  shared  in  by  those  who  continue  in 
communion  with  the  bishop.91  "  For  without  the  bishop  it 
is  not  lawful  to  baptize,  nor  to  celebrate  the  agape;  but  what 
ever  he  approves  of,  that  is  pleasing  to  God."  92  Owing,  no 
doubt,  partly  to  the  heresies  and  schisms  that  were  then  threat 
ening,  and  partly  also  to  the  bishop's  position  as  the  center 
of  unity  and  source  of  orthodoxy  to  each  particular  com 
munity,  St.  Ignatius  never  tires  of  admonishing  the  faithful 
to  be  loyal  in  their  adhesion  to  the  bishop.  It  must,  however, 
be  noted  that,  in  all  this  repeated  insistence  upon  proper  sub 
jection,  he  nowhere  says  a  word  in  defense  of  the  institution 
of  hierarchical  powers  and  offices.  That  the  hierarchy,  in 
its  various  grades  as  he  knows  them,  bishop,  priests,  and 
deacons,  has  a  legitimate  existence,  and  is  therefore  of  Apos 
tolic  origin,  he  takes  for  granted  as  acknowledged  by  all,  not 
only  in  Asia  Minor,  but  "  per  tractus  terrae,"  all  the  world 
over.93  In  this  he  but  reproduces  the  teaching  of  St.  Clement. 

And  like  that  writer,  he  also  bears  witness  to  the  Primacy 
of  Rome.  This  appears  in  his  letter  to  the  Romans.  "  I  do 
not  command,"  he  tells  them,  "  as  did  Peter  and  Paul."  94 
"  You  have  never  envied  any  one,  you  have  taught  others. 
And  I  too  wish  those  things  to  be  firm  which  you  teach  and 
command."  95  "  Be  mindful  in  your  prayers  of  the  church 
of  Syria,  which  has  in  my  stead  God  for  its  pastor.  Jesus 
Christ  alone  and  your  charity  govern  it  now  in  place  of  its 

89  Magn.  6,  i.  93  Eph.  3,  2. 

90  Eph.  6,  i.  9*  Rom.  4,  3. 

91  Smyrn.  8,   i.  95  Ibid.  3,  i. 

92  Smyrn.  8,  2. 


TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS   85 

bishop."  96  Hence  in  the  inscription  of  his  letter,  the  author 
addresses  the  Church  which  is  "in  the  place  of  the  country 
of  the  Romans  "  as  presiding  over  the  brotherhood  of  charity, 
which  brotherhood  is  made  up  of  the  faithful  dispersed  through 
the  various  local  churches  all  over  the  world.97  Non-Catholic 
scholars  commonly  take  a  different  view  of  this  matter,  but, 
as  Bardenhewer  remarks,  this  want  of  agreement  on  their  part 
is  the  outcome  not  of  historical  criticism  as  such,  but  of  his 
torical  criticism  perverted  by  religious  bias.  The  fact  that 
Ignatius  admitted  the  Primacy  of  the  Roman  Church  cannot 
well  be  doubted,  but  whether  he  held  it  to  be  of  divine  origin 
is  not  stated. 

Hermas  also  dilates  somewhat  on  the  position  of  the  Church 
in  the  divine  economy  of  salvation,  but  owing  to  his  allegoriz 
ing  tendencies  he  is  less  satisfactory.  He  represents  the  faith 
ful,  stamped  in  baptism  with  the  seal  of  spiritual  regeneration, 
as  incorporated  in  the  Mystic  Tower,  which  is  a  figure  of  the 
Church  of  Christ.  The  Church  thus  conceived  is  the  new 
Israel,  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  Prophets  and  the  Apos 
tles,  but  of  which  the  Son  of  God  is  Himself  the  corner 
stone.98  The  Tower  is  still  in  building,  and  God  Himself 
supervises  the  work.  Only  perfect  stones  are  used,  but  in 
course  of  time  many  lose  their  original  perfection.  These  are 
then  removed  from  their  position  and  handed  over  to  the 
Angel  of  Penance,  who  cleanses  and  reshapes  them,  and  thus 
makes  them  fit  to  be  oncfe  more  inserted  into  the  walls  of  the 
Tower.99 

All  this  is  allegorical,  but  through  the  allegory  one  can  get 
a  glimpse  of  the  reality  that  stood  before  the  author's  mind. 
The  Tower  in  its  completion  and  final  perfection  is,  of  course, 
a  figure  of  the  Church  Triumphant  in  heaven,  but  so  long  as 
it  is  in  building  it  also  designates  the  Church  Militant  on 
earth.  It  is  a  Church  in  which  penance  is  still  of  avail,  and 
where  the  deformity  of  vice  dwells  side  by  side  with  the  beauty 
of  virtue.  It  is  the  same  Church  as  that  which  the  author 

98  Ibid.  9,  i.  kirch.  Lit.  I,  123-124. 

97  Cfr.  Batiffol,  Primitive  Cathol-          98  Simil.  9,  5,  I,  2. 
icism,    140-143 ;    Bardenhewer,   Alt-          "  Simil.  9,  6-7. 


86  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

elsewhere  depicts  under  the  figure  of  a  willow  tree,  some  of 
whose  branches  have  been  cut  off  and  are  apparently  lifeless; 
yet,  when  they  are  planted  in  the  earth  and  well  watered,  they 
grow  again.100  In  its  most  comprehensive  sense,  therefore, 
the  Church  includes  all  believers,  whether  they  are  still  strug 
gling  here  on  earth  or  have  already  attained  the  eternal  joys 
of  heaven.  Hence  the  author  gives,  in  outline  at  least, 
also  the  fundamental  elements  of  the  Communion  of 
Saints. 

In  one  sense  the  Church  dates  from  the  beginning  of  the 
world,  and  the  world  was,  in  fact,  created  for  the  Church; 101 
but  in  another  sense  she  has  her  origin  also  in  the  redemption 
of  mankind  by  the  Son  of  God.  "  As  many  as  hear  His  mes 
sage,  and  believe,  are  called  in  His  name.  When  they  have 
received  the  baptismal  seal,  they  are  all  of  one  heart  and  mind, 
having  but  one  faith  and  one  charity."  102  Hence,  too,  the 
Tower,  which  represents  the  Church,  is  built  "  upon 
the  waters." 103  When  Hermas  asks  the  reason  of  this, 
he  is  told:  "Because  your  life  is  saved  and  shall  be 
saved  by  water."  Without  baptism  no  one  can  become 
a  member  of  the  Church.  This  is  so  true  that  "  the 
Apostles  and  the  teachers,  who  preached  the  name  of  the  Son 
of  God,  after  they  had  fallen  asleep  in  the  power  and  faith 
of  the  Son  of  God,  preached  also  to  those  who  had  fallen 
asleep  before  them,  and  themselves  gave  unto  them  the  seal  of 
preaching.  Therefore  they  went  down  with  them  into  the 
water  and  came  up  again.  But  these  went  down  alive  and 
came  up  alive ;  whereas  the  others  that  had  fallen  asleep  went 
down  dead  and  came  up  alive."  104  Hence  the  author  holds 
that  all  the  just,  who  had  died  before  the  advent  of  Chris 
tianity,  had  to  be  baptized  after  their  death. 

Thus  the  Church  is  indeed  a  spiritual  creation,  embracing 
all  times  and  comprising  all  the  saints  of  God,  yet  in  her 
concrete  existence  she  is  constituted  in  local  and  visible  com 
munities,  into  which  the  members  are  admitted  by  a  sacra- 

100  Simil.  8,  2,  7.  103  Vis.  3,  2. 

101  Vis.  2,4,1;  i,  i,  6.  10*  Simil.  9,  16. 

102  Simil.  9,  17,  4. 


TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS        87 

mental  rite.  In  these  communities  are  presiding  officers  and 
presbyters  to  whom  the  author  is  directed  to  read  his  book, 
and  who  sit  down  first  in  the  assembly  of  the  faithful.105 
Mention  is  also  made  of  apostles,  bishops,  teachers,  and  dea 
cons,  some  of  whom  are  dead,  whilst  others  are  still  living.106 
Then  there  is  a  certain  Clement,  who  appears  to  be  at  the 
head  of  them  all  and  to  have  authority  over  the  whole  Church. 
To  him  the  author  must  give  a  copy  of  his  book,  that  he  may 
send  it  to  other  cities.107  This  obviously  refers  to  Clement 
of  Rome,  the  third  successor  of  St.  Peter,  whose  primatial 
position  thus  appears  to  have  been  accepted  by  the  faithful 
as  an  undisputed  fact. 

The  other  writers  belonging  to  this  group  speak  of  the 
Church  only  in  passing.  Thus  the  author  of  the  Didache 
directs  the  faithful  to  pray  that  the  Lord  may  be  mindful  of 
His  Church,  and  gather  her  from  the  four  winds  into  the 
kingdom  He  has  prepared  for  her.108  In  connection  with  the 
Eucharist  he  speaks  of  bishops  and  deacons,  whose  office  it 
is  to  celebrate  the  divine  mysteries.  "  Constitute,  therefore, 
for  yourselves  bishops  and  deacons,  who  are  worthy  of  the 
Lord ;  men  of  gentle  character  and  not  greedy  of  money ;  men 
who  speak  the  truth  and  are  of  approved  virtue :  for  they  also 
exercise  in  your  behalf  the  ministry  of  the  prophets  and 
teachers."  109 

Besides  bishops  and  deacons,  the  author  mentions  three 
other  classes  who  exercise  various  functions  of  the  ministry. 
They  are:  (a)  Apostles,  who  are  engaged  in  missionary  work, 
going  from  community  to  community,  or  preaching  the  Gos 
pel  to  the  heathens,  (b)  Prophets,  who  teach  and  speak  in 
the  Spirit.  As  they  are  the  recipients  of  special  charisms, 
they  hold  the  most  honorable  place  among  Christian  min 
isters.  Every  sin  can  be  forgiven,  except  that  of  speaking 
against  a  true  prophet,  (c)  Teachers,  who  instruct  the  faith 
ful,  but  do  not  speak  in  the  Spirit.  Their  knowledge  is  ac 
quired  by  study,  and  their  lessons  must  be  prepared.  All 

105  Vis.  2,  4,  3 ;  3,  18.  108  Didache  10,  5. 

106  Vis.  4,  5,  i.  10&Ibid.  15,  I. 

107  Vis.  2,  4,  3. 


88  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

three  classes  are  subject  to  certain  trials,  and  rules  are  given 
to  distinguish  the  true  from  the  false.110 

Pseudo-Barnabas  briefly  notes  that  the  Saviour  gathered 
together  a  new  nation,  a  holy  people,  the  heir  of  those  great 
promises  which  the  Jews  had  falsely  appropriated  to  them 
selves.  This  new  nation  is  the  Church  of  Christ,  "  the  good 
land,  the  land  of  Jacob,  the  vessel  of  His  Spirit,"  and  as  such 
the  depository  of  spiritual  gifts,  the  organ  of  the  Spirit's 
manifestation  to  the  world.  The  Church  is  holy,  for  it  is 
the  Church  of  saints;  it  is  also  one,  so  that  all  schism  is  to 
be  condemned.111  However,  with  regard  to  the  constitution 
of  the  Church  and  ecclesiastical  government,  the  author  says 
nothing  definite. 

Polycarp  implies  that  the  hierarchy  consists  of  three  de 
grees,  the  bishop,  priests,  and  deacons.  He  calls  particular 
attention  to  the  virtues  required  in  deacons  and  priests,  and 
warns  them  especially  against  avarice.112  They  have  author 
ity  over  the  faithful,  who  must  obey  them  as  they  would 
obey  God  Himself.113  Priests,  however,  should  be  lenient  in 
their  treatment  of  delinquents,  for  we  are  all  sinners  before 
God.114 

The  "  Martyrium  Polycarpi "  brings  out  very  prominently 
that  the  Church  is  "  Catholic."  The  term  occurs  three  times  in 
the  body  of  the  letter  and  once  in  the  inscription.  Dr.  Funk 
contends  that  it  is  here  used  not  merely  in  its  primary  sense, 
denoting  universality,  but  also  in  its  secondary  meaning,  as 
implying  distinction  from  the  conventicles  of  heretics.  Others, 
however,  do  not  accept  this  view,  but  maintain  that  in  this 
latter  sense  the  term  is  met  with  for  the  first  time  in  the  Mura- 
torian  fragment,  which  originated  most  likely  towards  the 
end  of  the  second  century. 

The  Secunda  dementis  refers  several  times  to  "  presbyters," 
whose  duty  it  is  to  instruct  the  people,  and  disobedience  to 
whom  is  sinful  before  God.  "  Let  us  not  think  to  give  heed 
and  believe  now  only,  while  we  are  admonished  by  the  pres- 

110  Ibid,  ii,  1-12;  13,  2-7.  us  ibid.  5,  3. 

111  Barn.  6;  7;  11;  19.  "*  Ibid.  6,  I. 

112  Polyc.  6,  i ;  5,  2. 


TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS        89 

byters;  but  likewise,  when  we  have  departed  home,  let  us 
remember  the  commandments  of  the  Lord/'  Unless  we  do 
this,  we  shall  bewail  it  on  the  day  of  judgment,  because  "  we 
obeyed  not  the  presbyters,  when  they  told  us  of  our  salva 
tion."115 

Besides  these  incidental  references,  the  author  gives  the 
following  rather  puzzling  description  of  the  Church.  He  as 
sumes  that  the  Church  is  necessary  for  salvation,  because 
she  is  the  body  of  Christ.  And  she  is  the  body  of  Christ,  "  be 
cause  Scripture  says,  God  made  man  male  and  female.  The 
male  is  Christ,  and  the  female  is  the  Church.  And  the  books 
of  the  Prophets  and  the  Apostles  plainly  declare  that  the 
Church  is  not  of  to-day,  but  hath  been  from  the  beginning: 
for  she  was  spiritual,  as  our  Jesus  also  was  spiritual,  but 
she  was  manifested  in  these  latter  days  that  she  might  save 
us.  Now  the  Church,  which  is  spiritual,  was  manifested  in 
the  flesh  of  Christ,  thereby  showing  us  that,  if  any  of  us 
guard  her  in  the  flesh  and  defile  her  not,  he  shall  receive  her 
again  in  the  Holy  Spirit :  for  this  flesh  is  the  antitype  of  the 
spirit.  No  man,  therefore,  when  he  hath  defiled  the  anti 
type,  shall  receive  the  reality.  Listen  then,  brethren:  Guard 
ye  the  flesh,  that  you  may  partake  of  the  spirit.  But  if  we 
say  that  our  flesh  is  the  Church  and  the  spirit  of  Christ,  then 
he  that  soiled  the  flesh  hath  soiled  the  Church,  and  such  a 
one,  therefore,  shall  not  partake  of  the  spirit,  which  is 
Christ.'' 116 

This  is  at  best  not  very  illuminating.  That  the  Church 
is  the  body  of  Christ,  of  course  in  a  mystical  sense,  is  per 
fectly  orthodox,  and  is  evidently  derived  from  the  teaching 
of  St.  Paul;  but  the  idea  of  her  spiritual  pre-existence,  as 
here  portrayed,  seems  altogether  foreign  to  the  Christian  con 
cept  of  the  Church,  although  something  like  it  appears  also 
in  Hermas.  Batiffol  suggests  that  it  was  derived  from  Jewish 
speculations  about  the  heavenly  Jerusalem."  m 

7°.  Baptism. — Entrance  into  the  Church  is  obtained  through 
baptism,  because  the  Church  is  "  built  upon  the  waters."  On 

us  IT  clem.  17.  i"  O.  c.  182,  183, 

118  Ibid.  14,  1-5. 


9o  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

this  all  these  writers  are  agreed,  in  as  much  as  they  assume 
every  Christian  to  have  received  baptismal  regeneration. 
Hence  the  author  of  the  Didache  says  very  positively:  "Let 
no  one  eat  or  drink  of  your  Eucharist,  except  he  has  been 
baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord ;  for  it  was  in  reference  to 
this  that  the  Lord  said :  *  Do  not  give  holy  things  to 
dogs.'  "  118  The  external  rite  is  thus  described  by  the  same 
author:  "  After  you  have  said  all  these  things  (that  is,  after 
you  have  properly  instructed  the  catechumens),  baptize  in  the 
name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
in  flowing  water.  But  if  you  have  no  flowing  water,  baptize 
in  any  other  water;  if  you  cannot  baptize  in  cold  water,  bap 
tize  in  warm.  But  if  you  have  neither  (sufficient  for  immer 
sion),  pour  water  three  times  on  the  head  in  the  name  of 
the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  119  The 
minister  and  the  candidate,  and,  if  possible,  some  others  also, 
ought  to  fast  one  or  two  days  before  baptism  is  conferred.120 
The  effects  of  baptism  are  thus  neatly  described  by  Pseudo- 
Barnabas  :  "  We  descend  into  the  water  full  of  sins  and 
stains,  and  we  come  out  of  it  bearing  fruit,  having  in  our 
hearts  the  fear,  and  in  our  minds  the  hope  in  Jesus."  121  Thus 
baptism  is  a  true  renovation  and  the  beginning  of  a  new  life, 
in  which  the  fruits  of  the  redemption  are  applied  to  the  indi 
vidual  soul.  Hence  he  says  in  another  place :  "  When,  there 
fore,  He  renovated  us  through  the  remission  of  sins,  He 
brought  it  about  that  we  should  have  another  form,  to  wit, 
a  soul  like  that  of  children,  seeing  that  He  reformed  us."  122 
We  become  in  a  manner  the  living  temple  of  God ;  for  "  hav 
ing  received  the  remission  of  sins,  and  filled  with  hope  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord,  we  have  become  new  men,  again  created 
in  our  entirety :  for  this  reason  God  truly  dwells  in  us,  in  our 
own  dwelling.  How?  'His  word  of  faith,  His  calling,  His 
promise,  the  wisdom  of  commands,  the  precepts  of  doctrine, 
He  himself  prophesying  and  dwelling  in  us,  opening  the  door, 
to  wit,  the  mouth,  to  us  who  are  given  up  to  death,  all  this 

118  Didache  9,  5.  121  Barn,  n,  11. 

119  Ibid.  7,  i,  2,  3.  122  ibid.  6,  ii 

120  ibid.  7,  4. 


TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS        91 

inspires  us  with  penance  and  introduces  us  into  the  incorrup 
tible  temple."  123 

Hermas  speaks  almost  in  the  same  terms :  "  Before  man 
bore  the  name  of  son  of  God,"  he  says,  "  he  was  dead ;  but 
when  he  received  the  seal,  he  put  off  mortality  and  resumed 
life.  The  water  therefore  is  a  seal;  they  descend  into  the 
water  in  the  state  of  death  and  come  up  alive."  124  This  new 
life  is  marked  by  union  in  faith  and  charity  and  by  moral 
purity :  "  Having  then  received  the  seal,  they  had  one  mind, 
one  faith,  and  one  charity,  and  they  bore  within  them  the 
spirits  of  virgins  together  with  the  name."  125 

That  baptism  is  a  seal  which  marks  the  Christian  as  belong 
ing  in  a  special  manner  to  God,  and  which  carries  with  it  the 
obligation  of  a  holy  life,  is  also  brought  out  by  the  author  of 
the  Secunda  dementis,  who  exhorts  the  faithful  to  preserve 
immaculate  the  "  sphragis  "  or  seal,  for  this  will  entitle  them 
to  everlasting  life,  while  its  violation  through  sin  leads  to 
eternal  loss.126  "  If  we  keep  not  our  baptism  pure  and  unde- 
filed,"  he  says  in  another  place,  "  what  confidence  can  we  have 
of  entering  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  "  127  Precisely  what 
these  writers  understood  by  the  "  seal "  is  not  clear,  but 
in  view  of  later  developments  it  may  be  assumed  that  they 
referred  to  the  sacramental  character. 

8°.  The  Holy  Eucharist. — The  author  of  the  Didache  speaks 
of  the  Eucharist  in  two  different  places.  In  chapters  9  and 
10  he  gives  the  prayers  to  be  said  before  and  after  receiving, 
at  least  according  to  the  more  common  interpretation  of  the 
passage.  Here  the  consecrated  elements  are  called  "  spiritual 
food  and  drink,"  which  those  only  are  allowed  to  receive  who 
"have  been  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  In  chapter 
14  he  says:  "  But  on  the  Lord's  Day  coming  together  break 
bread  and  give  thanks,  after  you  have  confessed  your  sins, 
so  that  your  sacrifice  may  be  pure.  And  let  no  one  who  has 
a  controversy  with  his  friend  associate  with  you,  until  they 
have  been  reconciled,  lest  your  sacrifice  should  be  made  unclean. 

123  Ibid.  16,  8,  9.  126  II  Clem.  7,  6 ;  8,  6. 

124  Simil.  9,  16,  3,  4.  127  Ibid.  6. 

125  Simil.  9,  17,  4. 


92  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

For  this  was  said  by  the  Lord:  In  every  place  and  at  all 
times  let  there  be  offered  to  me  a  clean  sacrifice,  because  I 
am  a  great  king,  saith  the  Lord,  and  my  name  is  wonderful 
among  the  Gentiles."  Hence  the  author  evidently  regards 
the  Eucharistic  rite  as  the  Christian  sacrifice,  but  he  makes 
no  explicit  mention  of  the  Real  Presence. 

Clement  also  refers  to  the  Eucharist  as  a  sacrifice,  when  he 
tells  the  Corinthians  that  they  must  do  all  things  which  the 
Lord  has  enjoined  to  be  performed  at  stated  times.  "  For  He 
commanded  that  oblations  should  be  made  and  that  the  sacred 
functions  should  be  performed,  not  carelessly  and  without  due 
order,  but  at  stated  times  and  hours."  128  And  then  he  in 
stances  how  God  had  made  similar  regulations  for  the  priests 
of  the  Old  Law.129 

All  this,  however,  is  more  fully  treated  by  Ignatius,  who 
comes  back  to  it  again  and  again  in  his  exhortations  to  union 
with  the  bishop.  Thus,  writing  to  the  Ephesians  on  the  neces 
sity  of  perfect  union,  he  reminds  them  that  they  "  are  break 
ing  one  and  the  same  bread,  which  is  the  medicine  of  immor 
tality,  the  antidote  against  death,  and  causes  us  to  live  for 
ever  in  Christ  Jesus."  13°  He  uses  the  term  "  Eucharist "  not 
only  to  designate  the  ritual  action,  but  also  to  signify  the 
consecrated  elements  themselves.  Speaking  of  the  Docetse, 
he  says  that  "  they  abstain  from  the  Eucharist  and  prayer, 
because  they  do  not  confess  that  the  Eucharist  is  the  flesh  of 
the  Saviour,  which  has  suffered  for  our  sins  and  which  the 
Father  has  raised  up  from  the  dead  in  His  kindness."  131  In 
this,  as  is  quite  evident,  the  Real  Presence  is  not  only  assumed 
or  implied,  but  explicitly  stated.  The  same  is  true  of  several 
other  texts,  as,  for  instance,  when  he  writes  to  the  Romans: 
"  I  take  no  delight  in  the  food  of  corruption,  nor  in  the  pleas 
ures  of  this  life:  I  desire  the  Bread  of  God  which  is  the 
flesh  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  of  the  seed  of  David."  132  Hence 
when  in  other  places  he  speaks  of  the  Eucharist  as  a  symbol 
and  bond  of  union,  he  cannot  possibly  intend,  as  some  modern 

f128  I  Clem.  40,  i.  1S1  Smyrn.  7,  i. 

-^129  Ibid.  40,  5.  132  Rom.  7j3. 

^3o  Eph.  20,  2. 


TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 


critics  maintain,  that  the  Saviour's  presence  in  the  consecrated 
elements  is  only  symbolic.  As  Ignatius  understands  it,  the 
body  and  blood  of  Jesus  are  really  present,  and  because  of 
their  real  presence  the  Eucharist  is  the  symbol  and  bond  of 
union.  He  also  makes  reference  to  the  Christian  sacrifice, 
when  he  writes  that  "  there  is  but  one  flesh  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  one  chalice  in  the  unity  of  his  blood,  one  place  of 
sacrifice,  as  also  there  is  one  bishop  with  the  presbyterium  and 
the  deacons."  133 

9°.  Penance.  —  Although  these  writers  consider  baptism  as 
the  beginning  of  a  new  life,  which  ought  to  be  free  from 
sin,  nevertheless  they  all  refer  to  penance  as  a  matter  of 
necessity  for  the  ordinary  Christian.  They  also  give  to  this 
penance  a  kind  of  official  character,  which  connects  it  in  some 
way  with  the  ministration  of  the  Church.  Thus  the  author 
of  the  Didache  tells  his  readers  in  two  different  places  that 
they  must  confess  their  sins  in  the  Church,134  and  this  direction 
is  repeated  by  Pseudo-Barnabas.135  When  Clement  exhorts 
the  disturbers  of  the  peace  at  Corinth  to  do  penance,  he  bids 
them  to  submit  themselves  to  the  presbyters.136  Ignatius  tells 
the  Christians  at  Philadelphia  that  "  God  remits  the  sins  of  all 
penitents,  if  they  repent,  acknowledging  the  unity  of  God  and 
following  the  counsel  of  the  bishop."  13T  Polycarp  admon 
ishes  the  priests  at  Philippi  to  be  lenient  in  their  treatment  of 
delinquents,138  and  the  author  of  the  Secunda  dementis  ex 
horts  his  hearers  to  do  penance  for  the  sins  which  they  have 
committed  in  the  flesh,  so  that  they  may  be  saved  by  the  Lord 
whilst  they  have  time  to  repent.  "  For  after  we  have  departed 
this  life,  we  can  no  longer  confess  and  do  penance."  139 

The  matter  is  more  fully  treated  by  Hermas,  who  made  it 
the  burden  of  his  entire  book.  He  has  heard  it  said  by  some 
that  the  only  efficacious  penance  is  the  one  connected  with 
baptism,  when  a  full  remission  of  former  sins  is  granted ;  and 
he  has  also  heard  it  said  by  others  that  there  is  no  need  of 

133  Philad.  4.  AST  Philad.  8,  I. 

-134  Didache  4,  14;  14,  iS>  /138  Polyc.  6,  i. 

13s  Barn.  19,  12.  //  ! 139  II  Clem.  8,  2,  3. 

"6  I  Clem.  57,  i. 


94  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

penance:  but  neither  of  these  views  is  acceptable.140  For 
penance  is  certainly  necessary,  and  it  is  also  efficacious  after 
baptism.141  However,  efficacious  penance  is  possible  only  for 
sins  committed  up  to  the  time  of  his  writing;  those  who  avail 
themselves  of  it  are  assured  of  forgiveness,  but  if  after  that 
they  sin  again  they  run  a  great  risk,  they  shall  hardly  be 
saved.142  Hence  for  Christians  there  is  only  one  penance, 
granted  them  by  the  merciful  God  who  knows  the  weakness 
of  human  nature.  This  penance,  however,  is  conceded  to  all ; 
not  even  the  wicked  race  of  apostates,  whose  plight  appears 
so  desperate,  is  excluded  from  it:  they,  too,  may  thereby  be 
restored  to  their  former  place.143 

From  this  reasoning  of  the  author  some  have  concluded 
that  the  penance  here  mentioned  was  by  way  of  a  special  con 
cession,  "a  kind  of  jubilee,"  as  Tixeront  words  it;  but  the 
text  points  the  other  way.  When  Hermas  says  to  the  Shep 
herd,  "  I  have  heard,  sir,  from  certain  teachers,  that  there  is 
no  other  repentance  than  that  which  took  place  when  we  went 
down  into  the  water  and  obtained  remission  of  our  former 
sins,"  the  latter  replies  indeed,  "  Thou  hast  well  heard,  for 
so  it  is  " ;  but  he  adds  that  this  is  to  be  the  rule  for  the  future, 
though  it  was  not  so  in  the  past.  "  To  those  then  that  were 
called  before  these  days  the  Lord  hath  appointed  repentance, 
.  .  .  but  I  say  unto  you,  if  after  this  great  and  holy  calling  any 
one,  being  tempted  by  the  devil,  shall  commit  sin,  he  hath 
only  one  repentance."  144 

Hence  what  is  new  in  the  author's  teaching  is  not  that  sins 
are  forgiven  after  baptism,  but  that  in  future  there  shall  be 
no  such  forgiveness.  The  common  belief  therefore  had  been 
that  post-baptismal  sins  might  be  blotted  out  by  penance,  and 
this  Hermas  feels  constrained  to  admit;  but  he  tries  to  make 
a  compromise  with  the  "  certain  teachers,"  obviously  only 
a  few,  who  hold  that  there  is  no  other  remission  of  sins  except 
through  baptism.  For  the  past,  he  says,  this  was  not  so; 
but  it  is  to  be  the  law  for  the  future.  Hence  the  further 

140  Mandat.  4,  3,  i ;  Simil.  8,  6.  5.         143  Simil.  8,  2,  8,  9 ;  9,  14. 
"I  Vis.  3,  7,  2;  8,  6,  3,  11,  3.  144  Mandat.  4,  3. 

142  Mandat.  4,  3,  46. 


TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS        95 

words  of  the  Shepherd :  "  For  the  Master  swore  by  His 
own  glory,  as  concerning  His  elect;  that  if,  now  that  this 
day  a  limit  has  been  set,  sin  shall  hereafter  be  committed, 
they  shall  not  find  salvation;  for  repentance  for  the  righteous 
hath  an  end;  the  days  of  repentance  are  fulfilled  for  all  the 
saints;  whereas  for  the  Gentiles  there  is  repentance  until  the 
last  day/' 145  What  the  author  dislikes  so  much  in  the  Chris 
tians  of  his  day,  is  their  constant  vacillation  between  sin  and 
repentance ;  and  to  correct  this,  he  cuts  off  for  the  future  all 
hope  of  forgiveness. 

Whether  the  forgiveness  of  post-baptismal  sins  depends  in 
any  way  on  the  intervention  of  the  Church,  is  not  stated  by 
the  author  in  so  many  words;  yet  he  seems  to  imply  it  all 
through  his  book.  Thus  the  "  Aged  Matron  "  who  gave  him 
the  little  book  on  penance  is  none  other,  he  is  told,  than  the 
Church.  It  is  she,  therefore,  to  whom  this  matter  of  penance 
has  been  entrusted.  Again,  he  brings  penance  into  so  close 
a  connection  with  baptism,  that  its  relative  position  in  the 
Church  may  well  be  considered  the  same.  Both  are  means  of 
obtaining  the  forgiveness  of  sins;  the  one  being  intended  for 
converts  at  the  time  of  their  admission  into  the  fold  of  Christ, 
and  the  other  for  Christians  after  they  have  strayed  from 
the  fold.  The  former  he  knows  to  be  applied  by  the  Church, 
and  the  most  reasonable  inference  is  that  he  holds  the  same 
with  regard  to  the  latter. 

This,  furthermore,  appears  also  to  some  extent  from  the 
manner  in  which  he  speaks  about  the  various  requisites  for 
efficacious  penance.  Not  only  must  one  be  truly  sorry  for 
past  sins,  and  have  a  firm  purpose  of  amendment,  but  there  is 
also  need  of  certain  works  of  penance  which  must  bear  a  more 
or  less  exact  proportion  to  the  number  and  gravity  of  the 
sins  committed.146  In  this  he  seems  to  refer  to  some  system 
of  public  penance  that  must  have  been  regulated  by  the  Church. 
For  it  is  not  likely  that  he  would  have  excogitated  all  this 
himself,  that  is,  without  being  guided  by  what  was  actually 
going  on  in  the  community  of  which  he  was  a  member. 

What  must  especially  be  noted  here,  and  the  same  is  true 

145  Vis.  2,  2.  i*«  Simil.  7,  4 ;  6,  4. 


96  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

in  respect  to  all  the  other  writers  of  this  group,  is  that  no 
sins  whatever  are  excepted  from  the  promise  of  forgiveness 
if  all  the  necessary  conditions  are  complied  with.  Heretics, 
apostates,  adulterers,  all  can  obtain  the  remission  of  their 
sins,  provided  they  truly  repent.  Hence  the  general  exhorta 
tion  to  penance :  "  As  many  as  do  penance  from  their  hearts, 
and  purify  themselves  of  their  iniquities,  and  do  not  add  to 
their  evil  deeds,  shall  receive  from  God  the  forgiveness  of 
their  former  sins,  if  so  be  that  they  do  not  entertain  any 
doubts  concerning  these  precepts  and  will  live  unto  God.  But 
those  who  add  sin  to  sin,  and  walk  in  the  evil  ways  of  this 
world,  will  thereby  condemn  themselves  to  death."  147 

10°.  Matrimony.  —  This  is  touched  upon  in  passing  by 
Ignatius  and  Hermas.  The  former  says :  "  It  is  becoming  that 
the  bridegroom  and  bride  contract  marriage  in  conformity  with 
the  ruling  of  the  bishop,  so  that  their  nuptials  may  be  accord 
ing  to  the  Lord,  and  not  as  suggested  by  passion."  148  The 
latter  points  out  the  indissolubility  of  the  marriage  bond  and 
the  lawfulness  of  second  marriages.  If  a  man  detects  his 
wife  in  adultery,  let  him  send  her  away;  but  he  must  not 
marry  again  during  her  lifetime:  if  he  does,  he  himself  be 
comes  guilty  of  adultery.149  If  a  marriage  is  broken  up  by 
death,  the  surviving  party  does  not  sin  by  contracting  another 
marriage;  still  it  is  more  meritorious  to  remain  single.150 

11°.  Eschatology.  —  In  one  way  or  another  all  touch  on 
this  point,  holding  out  the  hope  of  eternal  blessedness  to  those 
who  lead  good  and  virtuous  lives,  and  the  prospect  of  never- 
ending  sufferings  to  such  as  live  and  die  in  sin.151  In  this 
they  usually  reproduce  Scriptural  data,  without  entering  into 
details.  The  resurrection  of  the  body,  the  judgment  of  the 
living  and  the  dead,  and  the  eternity  of  heaven  and  hell,  these 
form  the  contents  of  their  eschatological  teaching.  It  may 
be  noted,  however,  that  the  author  of  the  Didache  seems  to 
limit  the  resurrection  to  the  just  only,152  and  that  Pseudo- 

147  Simil.  8,  ii,  3.  151  Cfr.  Hermas,  Simil.  9,  18,  2;  8, 

148  Poiyc.  5,2.  2 ;  Ignatius,  Eph.  16,  2 ;  Polyc.  2,  3 ; 

149  Mandat.  4,  I,  4-6.  6,  2. 

150  Mandat.  4,  4,  i,  2.  162  Didache  16,  7. 


TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS        97 

Barnabas  holds  there  will  be  a  Millennium  before  the  final 
consummation  of  things.153 

Many  other  points  of  doctrinal  value  are  brought  out  by 
these  writers,  which  the  want  of  space  forbids  us  to  consider 
in  this  connection.  Thus,  Hermas,  for  instance,  has  much 
to  say  about  the  angels  as  ministering  spirits ;  the  "  Martyrium 
Polycarpi "  points  out  most  clearly  the  difference  between  di 
vine  worship  and  the  veneration  of  martyrs,  and  all  of  them 
emphasize  the  necessity  of  faith  and  good  works  for  the  attain 
ment  of  salvation.  As  already  pointed  out,  these  writings  are 
almost  entirely  of  a  practical  character,  so  that  points  of 
dogmatic  import  are  usually  brought  in  to  drive  home  a 
lesson  in  right  living;  yet  in  spite  of  this,  we  find  here  an 
outline  of  Catholic  teaching  that  is  almost  complete  in  its 
fundamental  doctrines.  There  is  room  indeed  for  develop 
ment,  but  there  is  no  need  of  change  in  order  to  bring  this 
incidental  teaching  of  the  sub-Apostolic  past  in  connection  with 
the  fuller  exposition  of  the  actual  present.  This,  however, 
will  appear  more  clearly  in  the  following  chapters. 

And  here  it  must  be  noted  how  conservative  these  writers 
themselves  are,  how  chary  of  innovation.  They  have  received 
a  message  from  their  predecessors  in  the  faith,  and  that  mes 
sage  they  are  careful  to  hand  down  unaltered.  "  Do  not  devi 
ate  from  the  commandments  of  the  Lord,"  says  the  author 
of  the  Didache,  "  but  guard  what  thou  hast  received,  neither 
adding  thereto  nor  taking  aught  away  from  it."  154  "  Those 
who  foment  schisms,"  writes  Clement,  "  tear  asunder  the  mem 
bers  of  Christ." 155  "  If  any  one  speaks  to  you  without 
Christ,"  says  Ignatius,  "  close  your  ears,  do  not  listen  to 
him."  156  And  again :  "  Do  not  be  deceived,  brethren ;  if  any 
one  follows  him  that  causes  a  schism,  he  shall  not  obtain  the 
inheritance  of  the  heavenly  kingdom."  157  "If  any  one  wrests 
the  sayings  of  the  Lord  to  his  own  desires,"  adds  Polycarp,  "  he 
is  the  first-born  of  Satan."  158  No  matter  how  familiar  these 
writers  might  be  with  Greek  thought  and  Greek  philosophy, 

153  Barn.  4,  13.  ««  Trail.  9,  I. 

*54  Didache  4,  13-  157  Philad.  3,  3- 

155 1  Clem.  4,  6,  7-  158  Polyc.  7,  i. 


98  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

they  experienced  no  temptation  of  thereby  widening  the  deposit 
of  faith  entrusted  to  their  keeping.  Even  of  legitimate  devel 
opment  there  is  hardly  a  trace  in  their  writings,  as  a  reference 
to  the  chapter  on  New  Testament  teaching  will  readily  show. 
Their  one  and  only  care,  the  thought  ever  uppermost  in  their 
minds,  wras  to  guard  and  transmit  the  faith  received  from 
the  Apostles.  If  any  one  dared  touch  that,  and  thus  preach 
another  gospel  than  the  one  which  had  been  preached,  he  was 
forthwith  put  down  as  "  the  first-born  of  Satan,"  with  whom 
Christians  could  hold  no  communion. 


CHAPTER  VI 

HERETICAL  TENDENCIES  AND   PAGAN   OPPOSITION  TO 
CHRISTIANITY  DURING  THE  SECOND  CENTURY1 

It  was  towards  the  middle  of  the  second  century  that  doc 
trinal  development  began  to  manifest  itself  along  the  various 
lines  of  Christian  thought.  Up  to  that  time,  as  was  seen  in 
the  preceding  chapter,  little  had  been  done  by  the  teaching 
body  of  the  Church  besides  stating  the  different  revealed 
truths  as  they  had  been  handed  down  by  the  Apostles.  No 
philosophical  inquiry  had  been  made  as  regarded  their  full 
contents;  nor  had  the  concrete  conditions  of  Christian  life 
called  for  such  inquiry.  The  large  body  of  Christians,  though 
not  without  its  representative  men,  distinguished  alike  for 
literary  attainments  and  social  position,  was  on  the  whole  made 
up  of  simple  folk,  who  were  well  satisfied  to  know  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  the  Son  of  God,  that  He  had  come  to  save  a 
sinful  world  from  death,  that  He  wished  His  followers  to 
cling  together  as  a  chosen  nation,  that  He  was  still  in  their 
midst,  governing  them  through  His  authoritative  representa 
tives  and  nourishing  them  with  His  flesh  and  blood,  and  held 
out  to  all  the  promise  of  eternal  life,  if  they  would  but  strive 
to  follow  in  His  footsteps.  But  how  all  this  was  to  be  ex 
plained,  what  was  the  ultimate  rational  setting  of  these 
revealed  verities,  and  how  these  verities  themselves  might  be 
put  into  exact  theological  concepts  and  set  forth  in  apt  defini 
tions,  had,  with  perhaps  a  few  exceptions,  not  even  begun  to 
dawn  upon  the  minds  of  the  most  progressive  teachers.  The 
fact  of  revelation  was  known,  and  the  contents  of  the  deposi- 

1  Cfr.  Duchesne,  The  Early  His-  genroether-Kirsch,  Handbuch  der 
tory  of  the  Church,  I,  112-143;  allgemeinen  Kirchengeschichte,  4th 
Bardenhewer,  Altkirch.  Litt.  I,  315-  Ed.  I,  144-183.  This  last  named 
347 ;  *Bethune-Baker,  Op.  cit.  76-93 ;  author  gives  a  singularly  clear  and 
Tixeront,  H.  D.  I,  153-190;  Her-  full  exposition  of  Gnosticism. 

99 


I0o  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

turn  fidei  were  readily  accepted,  but  the  rational  side  of  these 
contents  was  still  an  unexplored  world. 

This  could,  however,  not  go  on  indefinitely.  Little  by  little 
men  trained  in  the  various  schools  of  Greek  thought,  who  were 
eagerly  in  search  of  the  true  philosophy  of  life,  came  in  con 
tact  with  this  new  teaching,  and,  as  a  necessary  consequence, 
subjected  it  to  critical  investigation  along  rational  lines  of 
inquiry.  Some  of  them  surrendered  themselves  to  it  with 
a  whole-souled  singleness  of  purpose;  others  accepted  it  with 
many  reservations;  whilst  others,  again,  studied  it  only  for 
the  sake  of  holding  up  to  ridicule  its  supposed  inconsistencies. 
All  three  classes  of  inquirers,  each  in  its  own  way,  were  instru 
mental  in  initiating  and  promoting  doctrinal  development. 
There  were  also,  indeed,  other  contributory  causes  at  work: 
such  as  popular  calumny  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  silent 
teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  hearts  of  the  faithful  on  the 
other;  but  they  were,  in  this  respect,  more  or  less  subsidiary 
to  the  first  named,  that  is,  to  the  efforts  of  intellectual  inquirers 
into  the  truths  of  Christianity. 

Of  these  three  classes,  thus  interested  in  Christian  teaching, 
the  first  was  made  up  of  orthodox  writers,  who  are  commonly 
called  Apologists.  The  second  consisted  of  men  strongly 
marked  by  heterodox  tendencies,  and  sometimes  openly  hereti 
cal  in  their  views.  The  third  embraced  numerous  contem 
porary  pagan  authors,  and  such  purveyers  of  popular  calum 
nies  as  provoked  the  Christian  Apologists  to  an  active  defense 
of  their  faith.  For  clearness'  sake  and  for  a  better  under 
standing  of  the  general  drift  of  orthodox  teaching  as  con 
tained  in  the  apologetical  writings  of  the  time,  we  shall  begin 
our  present  inquiry  with  a  brief  exposition  of  the  principal 
Gnostic  systems  of  philosophical  speculation  along  the  lines 
of  Christian  thought.  After  this  a  word  may  be  said  about 
Millennarianism,  which  found  favor  both  with  heretics  and 
some  orthodox  writers.  And  finally  a  summary  account  must 
be  given  of  pagan  opposition  to  the  faith,  as  that  also  had  a 
determining  influence  on  the  doctrinal  exposition  of  the 
Apologists. 


GNOSTIC  HERESIES  IOI 

A  —  GNOSTICISM  :  VARIOUS  SYSTEMS  :  INFLUENCE  ON 
CHRISTIAN  THOUGHT 

Gnosticism  may  be  said  to  rest  upon  a  triple  foundation  — 
Oriental  mysticism,  Greek  philosophy,  and  the  Gospel  of 
Jesus.  It  is,  indeed,  not  always  possible  to  determine  from 
which  of  these  three  sources  any  particular  doctrine  of  the 
Gnostics  is  derived,  or  to  affirm  that  there  are  no  other  ele 
ments  contained  in  it,  nevertheless  it  is  here  that  we  find  the 
general  basis  on  which  the  various  systems  are  built  up.  Thus 
from  the  Orient  comes  the  idea  and  conviction  that  matter  is 
essentially  evil,  and  that  therefore  the  Father-God,  the  Su 
preme  Good,  cannot  have  created  the  world.  Hence  the  inven 
tion  of  a  demiurge,  who  is  usually  identified  with  the  Creator- 
God  of  the  Old  Testament.  Hence,  too,  the  Docetic  doctrine 
that  the  Redeemer,  whose  divinity  is  defended  by  the  Gnostics, 
did  not  come  in  the  flesh,  but  merely  assumed  the  appearance 
of  our  humanity.  Then  from  Greek  philosophy  were  taken 
not  only  the  dialectic  weapons  of  defense  and  attack,  but  fre 
quently  also  the  intellectual  moulds  in  which  current  Oriental 
ideas  were  cast;  and  perhaps  too,  at  least  in  its  general  con 
cept,  the  exaggerated  view  of  the  abstract  nature  of  God. 
Finally,  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  supplied  the  supernatural  material 
upon  which  the  other  elements  of  Gnosticism  were  brought 
to  bear,  for  the  purpose  of  shaping  it  into  a  consistent  philoso 
phy  of  life. 

In  regard  to  this  last  point,  however,  it  must  be  noted  that 
the  Gospel  of  Jesus,  as  understood  and  accepted  by  the  Gnos 
tics,  is  not  identical  with  our  canonical  Gospels,  although  they 
too  were  made  use  of ;  but  under  this  title  were  gathered  cer 
tain  special  traditions,  written  or  oral,  which  purported  to 
contain  secret  conversations  of  the  Saviour  with  some  of  His 
Apostles  and  of  His  first  followers.  In  these  conversations, 
which  occurred  after  the  resurrection,  Jesus  communicated  to 
a  chosen  few  the  most  profound  mysteries  of  Gnosticism. 
Thus  originated  the  gospels  of  Thomas,  of  Philip,  of  Judas, 
the  Greater  and  Lesser  Questions  of  Mary,  and  the  Gospel  of 
Perfection.  It  was  on  account  of  this  claim  to  secret  and 


102  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

more  perfect  knowledge,  or  special  gnosis,  that  the  followers 
of  these  systems,  and  more  particularly  the  intellectual  aristoc 
racy  among  them,  were  labelled  Gnostics  by  those  who  refused 
to  admit  their  pretensions. 

The  first  beginnings  of  Gnosticism  are  usually  traced  back 
to  Simon  Magus,  or  Simon  of  Gitta  in  Samaria.  According 
to  St.  Justin,  who  was  a  native  of  those  parts,  almost  all 
Samaria  honored  Simon  as  a  god,  raised  high  above  all  other 
powers.2  His  doctrine,  as  summed  up  by  St.  Irenaeus,  was 
thoroughly  Gnostic,  but  it  is  probable  that  some  later  develop 
ments  found  their  way  into  this  summary.3 

From  Samaria  Simon's  teaching  passed  to  Antioch  in  Syria, 
where  it  was  propagated  by  Menander  and  Saturninus  about 
the  time  of  Trajan.  What  particular  views  of  their  own 
they  introduced  cannot  now  be  determined.  Jesus,  they  held, 
had  only  an  apparent  body,  and  His  mission  was  to  defeat 
the  God  of  the  Jews.  It  was  probably  against  them  that 
Ignatius  of  Antioch  defended  the  reality  of  Christ's  human 
nature. 

A  little  later,  Gnosticism  found  its  way  into  Egypt,  where 
it  reached  a  high  degree  of  development  through  the  labors 
of  two  Alexandrians,  Basilides  and  Valentinus,  the  best  repre 
sentatives  of  Gnostic  philosophy.  Their  efforts  at  proselytiz 
ing,  however,  do  not  appear  to  have  met  with  any  permanent 
success.  The  same  was  the  experience  of  Carpocrates,  a  Pla 
tonic  philosopher  of  Alexandria,  who  early  in  the  second  cen 
tury  founded  a  sect  of  his  own. 

It  was  about  this  time  that  Cerdon,  a  Syrian  by  birth, 
endeavored  to  make  propaganda  for  Gnosticism  in  Rome. 
His  efforts,  as  far  as  his  own  system  was  concerned,  proved 
futile,  but  he  seems  to  have  prepared  the  way  for  Marcion, 
who  made  a  sort  of  common  sense  synopsis  of  Gnostic  teach 
ing.  This  Marcion  was  the  son  of  a  bishop  in  Asia  Minor, 
and  he  himself  professed  to  be  a  follower  of  St.  Paul.  About 
140  he  came  to  Rome,  and  shortly  after  he  began  to  spread  his 
heterodox  views.  These  were  based  not  upon  secret  sources 

2Cfr.  I  Apol.  26;  56;  Dial.  120.  8  Adv.  Haer.  I,  29-31;  cfr.  Ibid. 

23- 


GNOSTIC  HERESIES  103 

of  revelation  and  higher  gnosis,  but  rather  upon  anti-Jewish 
and  dualistic  tendencies.  According  to  him,  there  was  no 
agreement  possible  between  the  revelation  of  Jesus  and  the 
teaching  of  the  Old  Testament ;  nor  between  the  God  of  crea 
tion  and  the  God  of  redemption.  But  how  the  relation  of 
these  two  orders  of  things  to  one  another  was  to  be  explained, 
he  did  not  stop  to  inquire.  His  was  a  practical  rather  than 
a  speculative  mind.  Both  Cerdon  and  Marcion  were  admitted 
to  penance,  but  they  did  not  persevere.4 

Owing  partly  to  the  severity  of  its  ethical  code,  and  partly 
to  the  practical  methods  of  its  founder,  Marcionism  spread 
rapidly  and  made  many  converts.  It  had  its  martyrs,  too, 
and  resisted  with  uncommon  energy  the  missionary  efforts  of 
Catholics  as  well  as  the  violence  of  persecutors.  Soon,  how 
ever,  it  split  up  into  many  sects,  headed  by  such  men  as 
Basiliscus,  Hermogenes,  and  Apelles.  Of  these,  Apelles  be 
came  the  most  famous.  He  differed  from  Marcion  chiefly  in 
admitting  only  one  First  Principle,  ascribing  creation  not  to 
a  second  god  but  to  an  angel.  Some  of  these  sects  remained  in 
existence  till  the  seventh  century. 

It  would  obviously  be  impossible,  in  a  compendious  work 
like  the  present,  to  trace  up  the  divergent  teaching  of  these 
different  systems,  but  what  was  more  or  less  common  to  them 
all  may  be  placed  under  the  following  heads.  With  the  excep 
tion  of  one  or  two  points,  this  summary  is  given  by  the  Abbe 
Duchesne  in  his  "  Early  History  of  the  Church."  5 

i°.  Matter  is  essentially  evil,  hence  God  can  have  no  con 
nection  with  the  world  except  through  intermediaries  ema 
nating  from  Himself. 

2°.  The  Creator  and  Lawgiver  of  the  Old  Testament  is  not 
the  true  God.  He  is  infinitely  below  the  Father-God,  the 
Supreme  First  Cause  of  all  being. 

3°.  Neither  did  He  know  the  true  God,  nor  did  the  world, 
until  the  appearance  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  sent  as  ambas 
sador  from  the  Father-God. 

4°.  Between  the  Supreme  First  Cause  and  creation  is  inter- 

4Irenaeus,  Adv.  Haer.  3,  4;  Ter-         5  Op.  c.  I,  127,  128. 
tull.  De  Praescrip.  30. 


104  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

posed  a  complicated  series  of  beings,  which  somehow  con 
stitutes  an  ideal  world.  But  at  some  point  or  other  in  this 
series  there  occurred  a  catastrophe,  utterly  destroying  its  har 
mony.  It  was  from  this  primal  disorder  that  the  visible  world, 
including  its  Creator,  originated. 

5°.  In  humanity  there  are  some  elements  capable  of  redemp 
tion,  having  in  one  way  or  another  come  from  the  celestial 
world  above  the  demiurge.  Jesus  Christ  came  to  effect  their 
deliverance. 

6°.  As  matter  is  essentially  evil,  the  Incarnation  cannot 
imply  a  real  union  between  the  Saviour's  divinity  and  human 
nature.  Hence  the  Gospel  story  is  explained  by  having  re 
course  to  a  purely  moral  union,  or  more  frequently  by  reducing 
Christ's  human  nature  to  a  mere  semblance  of  humanity. 

7°.  Neither  the  suffering  and  death,  nor  the  resurrection 
of  Christ,  were  real.  Nor  does  the  future  of  the  predestined 
include  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  Matter  is  simply  not 
capable  of  salvation. 

8°.  The  divine  element  which  has  strayed  into  humanity, 
that  is,  the  predestined  soul,  has  no  solidarity  with  the  flesh. 
There  is  a  necessary  opposition  between  the  two.  Hence  some 
teach  that  the  flesh  must  be  annihilated  by  asceticism,  whilst 
others  maintain  that  the  soul  cannot  be  held  responsible  for 
the  weaknesses  of  the  flesh,  and  therefore  may  allow  full 
sway  to  the  lower  appetites. 

Most  writers  on  the  subject  are  agreed  that  Gnosticism  was 
for  the  time  being  a  real  danger  to  orthodox  Christianity, 
especially  as  not  a  few  of  its  defenders  were  men  of  singular 
ability;  but  they  also  point  out  that  its  actual  influence  was 
on  the  whole  beneficial  rather  than  injurious,  although  only 
in  an  indirect  way.  Once  recognized  as  heretical,  its  leading 
tenets  aroused  strong  opposition,  and  thus  discredit  was 
thrown  on  all  leanings  to  dualism,  on  the  negation  of  free 
will,  and  on  the  depreciation  of  Old  Testament  teaching. 
Then,  too,  by  its  constant  appeal  to  Apostolic  writings  and 
traditions,  it  hastened  the  authoritative  determination  of  the 
canon  of  Holy  Scripture  and  ensured  the  safeguarding  of 
such  traditions  as  had  really  been  handed  down  from  Apos- 


MILLENNARIAN  SPECULATIONS  105 

tolic  times.  Furthermore,  it  stimulated  intellectual  activity 
in  orthodox  circles,  and  forced  Christian  teachers  to  give 
an  exposition  of  revealed  truths  which  had  till  then  usually 
been  expressed  in  Scriptural  language.  Hence,  although  it 
was  an  evil  tree,  indirectly  it  brought  forth  good  fruit.6 

B  —  MlLLENNARIANISM  7 

Taking  the  term  in  its  general  sense,  Millennarianism  stands 
for  a  variety  of  views  adopted  by  some  early  Christians  in 
respect  of  an  era  of  peace  and  happiness,  which  they  expected 
would  be  inaugurated  by  Christ  sometime  before  the  last 
judgment.  They  looked  forward  to  the  Saviour's  second 
coming,  when  He  would  establish  on  earth  a  kingdom  of 
perfect  justice,  over  which  He  together  with  His  saints  would 
reign  for  a  thousand  years.  Not  all,  indeed,  assigned  the 
exact  time  limit  of  a  millennium  to  this  period  of  earthly 
blessedness,  but  that  duration  seems  to  have  been  rather  com 
monly  accepted,  and  hence  the  general  term  by  which  these 
different  views  were  designated. 

Millennarianism  is  generally  looked  upon  as  a  legacy  from 
Judaism,  although  some  writers  on  the  subject  trace  it  back 
to  Parseeism,  the  religion  of  the  ancient  Persians.  At  any 
rate,  certain  obscure  passages  in  both  the  Old  and  New  Testa 
ment  were  usually  appealed  to  as  affording  a  Scriptural  basis. 
Thus  the  great  fertility  of  the  earth  during  the  Messianic 
reign  as  described  by  the  prophet  Joel,8  the  peace  and  glory  of 
the  children  of  God  as  pictured  by  Isaias,9  the  new  life  of 
those  slain  for  a  testimony  to  Jesus,  and  especially  their  rule 
with  Him  for  a  thousand  years,  as  represented  by  St.  John 
in  the  Apocalypse  10 —  all  these  and  similar  predictions,  inter 
preted  in  a  literal  sense,  were  held  to  contain  God's  own 
promise  of  a  millennium  of  earthly  happiness. 

The  different  views,  collectively  designated  as  Millennari- 

6  Cfr.  *  Bethune-Baker,  Op.  cit.  91.  Apostolici,  2,  276 ;  Tixeront,  H.  D. 
92.  I,  199  sqq. 

7  Atzberger,  Geschichte  der  christ-  8  Joel,  3,  17-21. 
lichen    Eschatologie    innerhalb    der  9  Is.  II,  6-17;  66,  18-23. 
vornicaenischen  Zeit ;  Funk,  Patres  10  Apoc.  20,  1-7 ;  21. 


io6  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

anism,  may  be  divided  into  two  classes.  The  first  of  these 
represents  a  gross  and  extreme  form  of  Millennarian  expecta 
tions,  according  to  which  the  just,  after  their  resurrection, 
were  to  live  here  on  earth  a  life  of  coarse  sensual  pleasure, 
"  without  law  and  without  shame."  This  view  was,  of  course, 
plainly  heretical,  being  in  evident  opposition  to  the  teaching  of 
Christ  and  the  law  of  God.  According  to  Eusebius,11  it 
formed  one  of  the  tenets  of  the  heresiarch  Cerinthus.  It 
seems  to  have  also  been  advocated  by  the  Ebionites,  the  Mar- 
cionites,  and  some  Apollinarians.  In  the  first  half  of  the 
third  century  it  was  openly  defended  by  Nepos,  an  Egyptian 
bishop ;  also  by  a  certain  Coracion,  who  is  said  to  have  drawn 
"  whole  dioceses  over  to  his  side."  12  This  gross  form  of 
Millennarianism  was  strongly  attacked  by  Caius,  a  Roman 
presbyter,  who  wrote  during  the  latter  part  of  the  second  cen 
tury.  Three  quarters  of  a  century  later,  it  found  a  valiant 
opponent  in  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  whose  efforts  were  so 
successful  that  he  put  an  end  to  Millennarian  teaching  in  the 
East.13 

The  second  class  of  views  is  commonly  designated  as 
Moderate  Millennarianism.  This,  again,  is  divided  into  two 
kinds.  Some  represented  the  happiness  of  the  just,  whilst 
reigning  with  Christ  on  earth,  as  largely  made  up  of  material 
enjoyment;  although  they  carefully  eliminated  everything  of 
an  immoral  nature.  Of  this  form  of  teaching  we  have  a 
sample  in  the  writings  of  Papias,  who  during  the  early  part 
of  the  second  century  was  bishop  of  Hierapolis.  In  a  frag 
ment  of  his  book,  entitled  "  Explanatio  Sermonum  Domini,"  he 
says :  "  The  day  will  come  when  vines  shall  spring  up  that 
have  each  ten  thousand  branches,  and  each  branch  ten  thou 
sand  offshoots,  and  each  offshoot  ten  thousand  smaller  off 
shoots,  and  each  smaller  offshoot  shall  bear  ten  thousand 
clusters,  and  each  cluster  ten  thousand  grapes,  and  each  grape 
shall  yield  twenty-five  measures  of  wine.  And  when  one  of 
the  saints  shall  reach  out  his  hand  for  a  cluster,  another  cluster 
will  cry  out :  '  I  am  the  better  one :  take  me,  and  through  me 

"Hist.  Eccl.  3,  28.  is  Ibid.  3,  28,  i,  2;  8,  24,  25;  6, 

12  Ibid.  6,  35;  7,  24.  35- 


PAGAN  OPPOSITION  107 

bless  the  Lord.'  "  14  Lactantius,  who  wrote  towards  the  end 
of  the  third  century,  points  to  a  similar  condition  of  things 
during  the  expected  Millennium. 

Other  writers,  however,  took  a  more  spiritual  view  of  the 
thousand  years  of  earthly  happiness.  Tertullian,  when  al 
ready  a  Montanist,  described  the  Millennium  as  the  heavenly 
Jerusalem  that  was  to  come  down  upon  earth.  Therein,  he 
says,  is  prepared  for  the  just  an  equivalent  of  spiritual  joys 
and  blessings  for  all  they  suffered  and  sacrificed  in  the  cause 
of  Christ.15  St.  Irenaeus  also  emphasized  this  spiritual  aspect. 
"  The  just,"  he  writes,  "  shall  reign  upon  earth,  growing  in 
perfection  because  of  the  vision  of  the  Lord,  and  through 
Him  they  shall  become  accustomed  to  beholding  the  glory  of 
the  Father;  they  shall  also  hold  converse  and  live  in  closest 
union  with  the  holy  angels."  16 

This  form  of  Millennarianism  is  more  or  less  clearly  taught 
in  the  writings  of  Pseudo-Barnabas,  Justin  Martyr,  Methodius 
of  Olympus,  Commodianus,  Victorinus  of  Pettau,  and  Quintus 
Julius  Hilarion.  Augustine  also  seems  to  have  favored  it  at 
first,  but  later  in  life  he  definitely  rejected  every  form  of  Mil- 
lennarian  teaching.17 

It  must  be  noted  that  besides  the  above  mentioned  writers, 
none  others  are  found  in  Patristic  times  of  whom  it  can  be 
affirmed  with  any  degree  of  certainty  that  they  lent  their  sup 
port  to  these  fanciful  speculations.  Hence  Millennarianism, 
even  in  its  most  moderate  form,  was  in  no  proper  sense  of 
the  term  a  part  of  Christian  belief.  Not  only  were  its  sup 
porters  few  in  number,  but,  with  the  exception  of  St.  Justin, 
St.  Irenaeus,  and  St.  Methodius,  all  of  them  were  either  men 
of  mediocre  ability  or  else  infected  with  heresy. 

C  —  PAGAN  OPPOSITION 

Soon  after  the  middle  of  the  first  century,  when  Christianity 
began  to  make  rapid  progress  and  some  of  its  doctrines  became 
imperfectly  known  to  the  pagans,  a  storm  of  opposition  was 

14  Funk,  PP.  Apost.  II,  276  sqq.          "  De  Civit.   Dei.  20,  7,   i;  6,   I, 

15  Adv.  Marc.  3,  24.  2 ;  7,  2 ;  9,  i ;  Serm.  259,  2. 

16  Adv.  Haer.  5,  35,  i ;  5,  32,  i. 


io8  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

raised  that  made  the  position  of  the  faithful  extremely  pre 
carious.  This  opposition  arose  in  the  first  instance  from  the 
populace,  which  charged  the  Christians  with  all  manner  of 
crimes  —  atheism,  impiety,  infanticide,  cannibalism,  and  the 
like.18  The  Christians  on  their  part,  when  the  opportunity 
offered,  answered  these  calumnies  by  emphatic  denials  and 
appeals  to  facts ;  but  this  availed  little,  since  it  was  practically 
impossible  to  make  the  sublime  nature  of  Christian  worship 
intelligible  to  a  people  steeped  in  moral  corruption.19 

Then,  in  the  early  part  of  the  second  century,  these  popular 
outbursts  began  to  be  followed  up  by  systematic  attacks  on  the 
part  of  pagan  philosophers,  who  saw  their  prestige  inter 
fered  with  by  the  efforts  of  Christian  teachers.  These  men, 
for  the  most  part  untrained  in  the  subtleties  of  reasoning  and 
the  graces  of  speech,  were  leading  away  the  multitude;  and 
their  doctrine,  though  so  repugnant  to  the  merely  human  in 
man,  made  far  more  impression  than  the  most  learned  dis 
quisitions  on  the  philosophy  of  the  day.  Hence  the  aggrieved 
parties  were  unsparing  in  their  ridicule  and  contempt,  some 
times  engaging  the  Christian  teachers  in  debate,  as  did  the 
cynic  Crescens,  and  at  other  times  attacking  them  in  writing, 
as  was  done  by  Pronto,  Lucian,  and  Celsus.  Of  these  writ 
ings,  however,  it  is  only  "  The  True  Discourse  "  of  Celsus 
that  has  come  down  to  us  with  any  sort  of  completeness.  A 
brief  analysis  of  it  will  give  us  an  idea  of  the  lines  of  attack 
followed  by  these  philosophers. 

Celsus  was  an  eclectic  Platonist,  and  he  published  "  The  True 
Discourse,"  about  178,  although  in  all  likelihood  he  had  em 
ployed  his  trenchant  pen  against  the  Christians  long  before 
that  date.  He  seems  to  have  been  a  highly  cultured  man  of 
the  world,  who  took  a  general  interest  in  philosophy  and 
attacked  Christianity  professedly  because  of  its  opposition  to 
the  State  religion.  He  was,  however,  honest  enough  to  study 
its  doctrines  before  he  attacked  them.  His  work  shows  that 
he  had  read  the  Bible  and  many  Christian  books,  that  he  knew 
the  difference  between  the  Gnostic  sects  and  the  main  body 

18Athenag.  Supplic.  3.  19  Justin,  I,  Apol.  13,  14;  Tatian, 

Orat.  4. 


PAGAN  OPPOSITION  109 

of  the  Church,  and  that  he  understood  to  some  extent  the 
relation  of  Christianity  to  the  Jewish  religion.  Thus  pre 
pared  he  began  his  task.  But,  strange  to  say,  nobody  seems 
to  have  taken  much  notice  of  his  book  until  about  fifty  years 
later,  when  it  fell  into  the  hands  of  Origen,  who  thoroughly 
refuted  it,  and  incidentally  preserved  its  main  contents  for 
posterity.  It  has  been  reconstructed  as  follows : 

After  a  general  introduction,  the  author  divides  his  subject 
into  four  parts.  In  the  first  part  he  tries  to  refute  Christianity 
from  the  Jewish  point  of  view.  Here  the  principal  figure  is 
a  Jew,  who  endeavors  to  show  that  the  Messianic  prophecies 
contained  in  the  Old  Testament  have  not  been  verified  in 
Christ.  In  the  second  part  he  speaks  in  his  own  person,  as 
a  pagan  philosopher,  attacking  the  Messianic  idea  directly, 
thus  rejecting  both  the  Christian  and  the  Jewish  religion  as 
based  upon  a  false  foundation.  In  the  third  part  he  singles 
out  special  doctrines  and  moral  precepts,  trying  to  prove  that 
they  have  been  borrowed  from  other  religious  systems.  Hence, 
even  if  the  teaching  of  Christianity  is  in  part  deserving  of 
respect,  this  is  no  commendation  of  the  Christian  religion 
itself.  In  the  fourth  part  he  argues  that  in  any  case  the  State 
religion  must  be  accepted,  since  it  has  come  down  from 
antiquity  and  is  necessary  for  the  well-being  of  the  State. 

There  is  a  close  resemblance  between  this  argumentation  of 
Celsus  and  that  of  modern  Rationalists,  and  the  refutation  of 
it  by  Origen  is  as  timely  to-day  as  it  was  some  seventeen 
hundred  years  ago.  Many  new  adversaries  of  Christianity 
arise  as  time  passes  on,  but  in  their  stock  of  objections  there 
is  little  that  is  really  new. 


CHAPTER  VII 

SECOND-CENTURY  APOLOGISTS  AND  THEIR  LITERARY 
ACTIVITIES  i 

From  the  very  first  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and  in  every 
place  where  the  message  of  Christ  had  been  accepted,  Christian 
communities  took  a  decided  stand  against  all  teaching  that 
came  in  conflict  with  the  doctrine  announced  by  the  Apostles. 
The  author  of  the  Didache,  Hermas,  Ignatius,  and  Polycarp, 
were  as  definite  in  their  denunciations  of  heretical  pretensions 
as  had  been  the  Apostles  themselves  in  similar  circumstances. 
However,  it  was  only  when  men  who  had  been  trained  in 
philosophy,  and  whose  lives  were  more  or  less  devoted  to 
literary  labors,  had  entered  the  Church,  that  a  formal  defense 
of  Christianity  was  taken  up  against  its  many  and  persistent 
adversaries.  These  men,  because  of  the  task  they  set  them 
selves,  were  already  in  ancient  times  spoken  of  as  Apologists. 

The  chief  aim  of  these  Apologists,  as  gathered  from  their 
own  writings,  was  to  clear  Christians  from  the  reproach  of 
crimes  attributed  to  them  under  the  influence  of  prejudice,  to 
obtain  for  them  tolerance  and  a  fair  application  of  the  State 
laws,  and  to  show  that  the  doctrines  they  professed  rightly 
claimed  the  attention,  respect,  and  even  the  assent  of  thought 
ful  minds.  In  addition  to  this,  they  also  vigorously  opposed 
all  deformation  of  Christian  truths  by  dreaming  heretics,  and 
they  consequently  had  many  an  opportunity  of  expounding 
the  contents  of  the  faith  in  accordance  with  the  teaching  of 
the  Church.  A  few  of  them,  like  Justin  and  Aristo,  also 

1  Cfr.  Tixeront,  H.  D.  I,  123-139 ;      von  Jesus  Christus ;  Picard,  L'Appl- 
Duchesne,  The  Early  History  of  the      ogie  d'Aristide ;   Batiffol,  Primitive 
Church,    I,    148-156;    Bardenhewer,      Catholicism,  192-197. 
Patrol.  44-70;  Feder,  Justins  Lehre 

no 


SECOND-CENTURY  APOLOGISTS  m 

directed  their  efforts  against  the  Jews,  partly  for  polemical 
and  partly  for  doctrinal  reasons. 

As  may  be  inferred  from  references  to  their  works  in  ancient 
writers,  there  was  quite  a  large  number  of  early  Christian 
authors  who  devoted  their  literary  ability  to  the  defense  of 
the  faith,  and  who  are  therefore  rightly  numbered  among  the 
Apologists.  In  the  present  connection,  however,  only  those 
can  be  taken  notice  of  whose  works,  either  whole  or  in  part, 
are  still  extant.  They  are  the  following,  arranged  as  far 
as  possible  in  chronological  order: 

i°.  Aristides  of  Athens,  a  philosopher,  who  between  156 
and  161  sent  an  apology  to  the  Emperor  Antoninus  Pius. 

2°.  St.  Justin  Martyr,  a  native  of  Palestine.  After  the 
manner  of  philosophers  in  those  days,  he  wandered  from  place 
to  place,  seeking  and  dispensing  wisdom,  until,  between  163 
and  167,  he  died  a  martyr's  death  in  Rome.  He  was  the 
author  of  many  works,  but  those  still  extant  are  only  his 
First  Apology  to  Antoninus  Pius  his  Second  Apology,  which 
seems  to  be  supplement  to  the  preceding,  and  his  Dialogue 
with  the  Jew  Trypho.  They  were  written  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  but  the  exact  date  of  their  composition 
is  not  known. 

3°.  Tatian  the  Assyrian,  a  philosopher,  and  disciple  of  St. 
Justin.  Shortly  after  his  conversion  to  the  faith,  about  165, 
he  published  an  apology  entitled  0 ratio  ad  Gracos,  which  is, 
in  effect,  a  criticism  of  Hellenism.  He  also  composed  a  so- 
called  diatesseron,  a  Gospel-harmony,  of  which  many  frag 
ments  are  still  extant.  Before  his  death  he  fell  away  from 
the  faith  and  became  a  Gnostic. 

4°.  Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis  in  Lydia,  who  died  about  190. 
He  was  a  most  prolific  writer,  but  of  all  his  many  works  only 
a  few  fragments  remain. 

5°.  Athenagoras,  "the  Christian  Philosopher  of  Athens." 
He  is  the  author  of  an  apology  presented  to  the  Emperors 
Marcus  Aurelius  and  Lucius  Verus  Commodus,  under  the 
title,  Supplicatio  sen  Legatio  pro  Christianis.  He  also  wrote 
a  work  on  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  The  apology  was 
composed  about  177;  the  date  of  the  second  work  is  not  known. 


H2  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

6°.  Theophilus,  bishop  of  Antioch,  the  sixth  successor  of 
St.  Peter.  He  wrote  the  three  books  Ad  Autolycum, 
wherein  he  explains  to  his  friend  Autolycus,  still  a  pagan,  the 
nature  of  the  Christian  faith  and  of  the  invisible  God,  shows 
up  the  folly  of  pagan  idolatry,  and  refutes  the  various  charges 
brought  against  the  Christians.  The  probable  date  of  the 
work  is  about  170. 

7°.  The  unknown  author  of  the  "  Letter  to  Diognetus." 
The  letter  was  probably  written  some  time  in  the  second  cen 
tury,  but  the  exact  date  has  not  been  ascertained.  It  is  a  reply 
to  certain  questions  asked  by  a  heathen  much  interested  in 
Christianity.  These  questions  deal  chiefly  with  the  Christian 
adoration  of  God,  as  distinguished  from  the  pagan  and  Jewish 
worship,  and  with  the  remarkable  change  of  life  observed  in 
converts  to  Christianity. 

8°.  Minucius  Felix,  a  Roman  jurist.  He  is  the  author  of 
an  apology  entitled  Octavius.  It  is  in  the  form  of  a  dia 
logue,  the  interlocutors  being  the  Christian  Octavius  Janu- 
arius  and  the  heathen  Caecilius  Natalis.  Csecilius  defends  the 
religion  of  his  fathers,  whilst  Octavius  pleads  the  cause  of 
Christianity.  It  ends  up  with  the  conversion  of  Caecilius. 
The  work  was  probably  written  in  the  last  quarter  of  the 
second  century. 

9°.  Tertullian,  a  priest  of  Carthage  in  Africa.  Besides 
numerous  other  works,  which  will  be  considered  in  a  subse 
quent  chapter,  he  addressed  a  defense  of  Christianity  to  the 
governors  of  the  Roman  Empire,  under  the  title  Apologeti- 
cum.  It  was  written  in  197,  and  is  a  refutation  of  the  various 
charges  brought  against  the  Christians. 

Taking  into  account  the  many  works  that  have  been  lost, 
although  their  authors  are  known,  one  cannot  help  realizing 
how  very  considerable  was  the  literary  activity  displayed  in 
these  early  ages  of  the  faith.  To  a  great  extent,  no  doubt, 
this  was  owing  to  the  difficult  position  in  which  Christians 
found  themselves;  but  it  also  shows  that  they  had  in  their 
midst  an  ample  supply  of  men  who  were  able  to  defend  the 
faith,  not  only  by  laying  down  their  lives,  but  equally  as  well 
by  wielding  a  trenchant  pen.  If  ever  there  had  been  a  time 


SECOND-CENTURY  APOLOGISTS  113 

when  none  but  "  women  and  children  and  timid  souls  "  fol 
lowed  the  teaching  of  the  Gospel,  as  some  of  the  early  adver 
saries  of  Christianity  contended,  that  time  was  certainly  past. 

A  —  DEFENSE  OF  CHRISTIAN  MORALS:  CHRISTIANITY 
AND  PHILOSOPHY 

The  teaching  of  the  Apologists  may  be  divided  into  three 
parts.  They  first  of  all  refute  the  charges  of  immorality  and 
atheism  brought  against  the  Christians  by  the  excited  popu 
lace  and  by  scoffing  philosophers.  Then  they  point  out  the 
relation  of  Christianity  to  philosophy  and  to  the  various  reli 
gions  then  in  vogue.  Lastly  they  expound  Christian  teaching 
by  the  aid  of  tradition  and  sound  philosophical  principles. 
Not  that  this  order  is  always  observed  by  the  individual 
writers,  but  the  three  points  here  mentioned  form  the  burden 
of  nearly  all  the  works  now  under  consideration. 

In  answer  to  the  charges  brought  against  the  Christians, 
they  simply  point  to  the  facts  of  Christian  life  and  faith,  which 
any  one  of  the  accusers  may  investigate  if  so  disposed.  These 
facts  show  that  Christians  are  neither  atheists,  nor  enemies  of 
the  State,  nor  libertines.  But  the  trouble  is  that  they  are  con 
demned  unheard,  against  the  explicit  provision  of  the  law ;  and, 
worse  still,  the  very  crimes  of  which  their  accusers  them 
selves  are  guilty  are  laid  to  their  charge.  They  observe  the 
law  of  Christ,  and  He  bids  them  to  worship  God,  to  lead  pure 
lives,  to  love  their  enemies,  to  be  kind  to  the  poor  and  forsaken, 
and  to  practice  all  manner  of  virtues. 

A  sample  of  this  kind  of  defense  may  be  taken  from  the 
apology  of  Aristides,  which  is  illustrative  of  what  is  found 
in  the  other  authors.  "  The  Christians,"  he  says,  "  derive 
their  origin  from  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  He  is  believed  to 
be  the  Son  of  the  Most  High  God.  ...  He  appeared  to  men 
that  He  might  draw  them  away  from  the  error  of  polytheism. 
.  .  .  These,  then,  are  the  men  who,  above  all  other  nations, 
on  earth,  have  found  the  truth.  For  they  acknowledge  God, 
together  with  His  only-begotten  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
as  the  author  and  fashioner  of  all  things,  and  beside  Him 
they  worship  no  other  god.  They  have  the  commandments  of 


H4  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

Jesus  Christ  engraven  on  their  hearts,  and  they  keep  them. 
They  do  not  defile  themselves  with  adultery  and  the  crime  of 
fornication,  do  not  give  false  testimony,  covet  not  what  be 
longs  to  others;  they  honor  father  and  mother,  love  the 
neighbor,  render  just  judgment;  what  they  do  not  wish  that 
others  should  do  them,  neither  will  they  do  it  to  others ;  those 
by  whom  they  are  injured  they  forgive  and  try  to  make  their 
friends;  they  do  good  to  their  enemies,  are  gentle  and  easy 
of  access;  from  all  unlawful  intercourse  and  impurity  they 
keep  themselves  free ;  they  do  not  despise  the  widow,  nor 
grieve  the  orphan,  but  gladly  come  to  the  help  of  the  needy; 
they  receive  the  stranger  under  their  roof  and  rejoice  in  his 
coming  as  if  he  were  a  brother;  for  they  call  one  another 
brother  not  by  reason  of  the  flesh  but  of  the  spirit;  for  the 
sake  of  Christ  they  are  ready  to  lay  down  their  lives,  because 
they  steadfastly  observe  His  precepts,  living  holily  and  justly, 
as  the  Lord  has  commanded  them."  2 

With  regard  to  the  relation  of  Christianity  and  pagan  phi 
losophy  there  are  found  among  the  Apologists  different  views, 
as  was  also  the  case  with  the  later  Fathers.  Some  of  them, 
like  Tatian  and  Tertullian,  spoke  as  a  rule  in  rather  disparaging 
terms  of  the  works  of  heathen  philosophers;  whilst  the  ma 
jority  saw  in  the  pre-Christian  strivings  aftei  wisdom  a  provi 
dential  preparation  for  the  sublimer  doctrines  of  revealed 
truth.  They  found  many  points  of  contact,  and  sometimes 
even  of  identity,  between  the  teaching  of  Christianity  and 
that  of  the  best  philosophers  of  the  various  schools.  Of 
course,  Christianity,  receiving  its  truths  from  divine  revela 
tion  and  being  supported  by  divine  authority,  presents  them 
more  clearly  and  establishes  them  more  firmly;  but  in  this  it 
confirms  rather  than  sets  aside  what  the  gropings  of  philosophy 
had  brought  to  light  in  the  days  of  old. 

Of  this  coincidence  and  partial  identity  of  certain  truths, 
as  taught  respectively  by  the  Christian  religion  and  pagan 
philosophy,  two  explanations  are  offered.  The  one,  already 
made  use  of  by  the  Alexandrian  Jews  and  adopted  rather 

2  Aristid,  15. 


SECOND-CENTURY  APOLOGISTS  115 

widely  in  Christian  circles,  simply  asserted  that  the  pagan 
philosophers  had  somehow  become  acquainted  with  the  con 
tents  of  the  Old  Testament  and  had  drawn  therefrom  the 
truths  set  forth  in  their  own  teaching.3  In  a  few  individual 
cases  this  might  perhaps  be  so,  but  as  a  general  rule  it  could 
not  be  sustained.  Hence  a  second  explanation  was  advanced, 
which  found  an  especially  staunch  advocate  in  St.  Justin. 
It  is  briefly  as  follows: 

According  to  St.  John,  the  Word  is  "  the  true  light,  which 
enlighteneth  every  man  that  cometh  into  this  world."  Hence 
the  Word  of  God,  who  is  light  and  life,  was  in  the  world  from 
the  very  beginning;  not  in  visible  form,  not  as  a  God-Man, 
but  in  His  invisible  communication  with  the  souls  of  men. 
Among  the  Jews  He  spoke  by  the  Prophets  and  inspired  the 
sacred  writers,  whilst  among  the  pagans  He  enlightened  the 
minds  of  the  philosophers  and  directed  their  teaching.  It  is 
true,  the  enlightenment  and  direction  vouchsafed  the  philoso 
phers  was  imperfect ;  it  was  not  real  inspiration,  and  hence  they 
taught  many  errors;  nevertheless,  whatever  truth  is  found  in 
their  works  had  its  source  in  Him.  Hence  between  Chris 
tian  teaching  and  true  philosophy,  no  matter  to  what  period 
of  time  it  belongs,  there  can  be  no  real  opposition;  for  both 
proceed  from  the  Word,  although  each  in  a  different  way.4 

This  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  various  passages  found 
in  the  writings  of  St.  Justin  in  reference  to  the  matter  in 
question.  Here  and  there  it  may  appear  that  he  held  real 
inspiration  in  the  case  of  philosophers  as  well  as  in  that  of 
the  sacred  writers;  but  when  all  he  says  on  the  subject  is 
taken  into  account,  this  cannot  be  held.  For  the  enlighten 
ment  of  which  he  speaks  is,  in  varying  degrees,  vouchsafed 
to  all  men,  and  each  one  receives  it  according  to  his  capacity, 
whilst  in  real  inspiration  the  capacity  of  the  recipient  does 
not  limit  the  divine  action.5 

B  —  EXPOSITION  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE 
In  their  exposition  of  Christian  doctrine  the  Apologists  do 

8  Justin,  Apol.  II,  44,  59;  Theoph.         4  Apol.  I,  5;  46;  II,  8;  10;  13. 
Ad  Autolycum,  2,  37,  36.  6  Apol.  II,  8;  13. 


n6  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

not  touch  upon  all  truths  taught  by  the  Church  at  the  time, 
but  they  are  fairly  comprehensive,  and  so  their  writings  form 
a  valuable  source  of  information  on  matters  appertaining  to 
the  History  of  Dogmas.  Their  arguments,  besides  such  as 
philosophy  supplied  them  with,  are  taken  indiscriminately 
from  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament.  Both  are  accepted 
by  them  as  containing  the  word  of  God.  It  was  the  Holy 
Spirit  who  directed  the  sacred  writers,  and  He  vouches  for 
the  truth  of  their  statements.  "  The  Prophets,"  writes 
Athenagoras,  "  were  transported  out  of  themselves,  and,  im 
pelled  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  spoke  those  things  wherewith 
they  were  inspired,  the  Holy  Ghost  using  them  even  as  a 
flute  player  uses  his  flute."  6 

When  writing  against  their  pagan  adversaries,  they  had 
frequent  occasion  for  proving  the  existence  of  one  supreme 
God,  which  they  usually  did  by  having  recourse  to  the  argu 
ment  of  causality,  or  to  the  teleological  argument  drawn  from 
the  marvelous  order  observed  in  the  universe.  "  He  alone 
is  God,"  exclaims  Theophilus,  "  who  separates  the  light  from 
the  darkness,  who  established  the  depths  of  the  abyss,  and 
marked  the  bounds  of  the  sea."  7 

They  are  quite  commonly  accused  by  their  critics  of  over 
emphasizing  God's  transcendence  and  His  incomprehensibility 
to  the  human  mind,  but  this  criticism  does  not  appear  alto 
gether  just.  They  were  certainly  very  far  removed  from 
making  of  God  a  mere  abstraction,  as  did  some  of  the  Greek 
philosophers  before  them;  and  also  from  placing  Him  in 
isolated  grandeur  beyond  all  contact  with  the  world  of  His 
own  creation,  as  did  the  Gnostics  whose  theories  they  rejected 
as  absurd.  They  ascribe  to  Him  in  a  preeminent  degree  the 
fullness  of  all  physical  and  moral  perfections;  He  is  a  God  who 
loves  all  His  creatures,  who  provides  for  them,  and  guides 
them  in  all  their  ways.  "  Him  I  call  God,"  writes  Aristides, 
"  who  created  and  preserves  all  things,  who  is  without  begin 
ning,  eternal,  immortal,  who  stands  in  need  of  nothing,  and 
is  far  above  all  perturbations  and  defects.8  Or  as  Theophilus 

6  Supplic.  9.  8  Apol.  i. 

7  Ad  Autolyc.  i,  6. 


SECOND-CENTURY  APOLOGISTS  117 

words  it :  "  God  derives  His  name  from  the  fact  that  He  is 
the  source  of  all  stability  in  this  changeable  world,  and  the 
fountainhead  of  all  action  and  life.  He  is  without  beginning, 
immutable,  immortal;  sustaining,  ruling,  and  caring  for  all 
things.  He  is  the  creator  and  author  of  all  beings,  and  His 
majesty  is  known  and  understood  from  the  greatness  of  His 
works."  9 

Against  both  pagan  philosophers  and  Gnostic  sectaries  they 
explicitly  defend  the  creation  of  the  world  out  of  nothing, 
"  jussu  Dei,"  and  very  definitely  reject  the  idea  of  an  eternal 
hyle  as  postulated  by  Plato.10  Nor  is  this  Creator-God  an 
inferior  power,  a  demiurge,  but  the  supreme  God  Himself, 
besides  whom  there  is  no  other  God.11  Harnack,  Tixeront, 
and  many  others  who  have  written  on  this  subject,  point 
out  that  the  Apologists  shrink  from  bringing  the  all-perfect 
God  into  immediate  contact  with  the  finite  and  the  change 
able;  and  that  therefore,  like  Plato  and  Philo,  they  postulate 
an  intermediary,  a  minister,  through  whom  He  pronounces 
the  creative  fiat.  The  fact  that  they  do  postulate  such  an 
intermediary  is  certain,  but  whether  they  were  guided  in  so 
doing  by  their  exaggerated  notion  of  an  all-transcendent  God, 
as  these  authors  maintain,  is  not  so  clear.  They  had  before 
them  the  teaching  of  St.  John,  that  "  in  the  beginning  was  the 
Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God," 
and  "  all  things  were  made  by  Him,  and  without  Him  was  made 
nothing  that  was  made."  12  This  contains  the  fundamental 
elements  of  their  doctrine  on  creation,  and  all  they  did  was 
to  evolve  these  elements  along  philosophical  lines. 

At  the  same  time,  however,  it  may  be  conceded,  and  is  indeed 
highly  probable,  that  in  the  concept  of  the  Creator- Word  they 
sought  to  combine  the  traditional  teaching  of  the  Church  and 
the  postulates  of  long  established  philosophical  systems.  Most 
of  them,  as  already  indicated,  had  received  their  early  training 
in  the  philosophical  schools  of  the  day,  and  it  was  but  natural 
that  this  training  should  influence  them  in  their  efforts  to  give 
a  rational  setting  to  the  truths  of  faith.  Within  certain  limits 

e  Ad  Autolyc.  i,  4.  "  Ibid. 

10  Ibid.  2,  4;  Aristid.  I,  4.  12  John,  I,  I,  3. 


n8  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

this  was,  of  course,  quite  legitimate,  but  in  some  respects  they 
seem  to  have  gone  beyond  these  limits.  For  they  introduced 
certain  views,  at  least  as  far  as  the  wording  goes,  which  were 
later  on  found  to  be  more  or  less  out  of  harmony  with  the 
mind  of  the  Church.  We  may  instance  the  apparent  sub 
ordination  of  the  Word  and  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  Father, 
not  only  as  regards  their  origin,  but  also  in  reference  to  the 
perfection  of  their  being.  Of  this  point,  however,  something 
more  will  be  said  in  another  paragraph. 

First,  then,  they  accepted  from  the  traditional  teaching  of 
the  Church  the  unity  of  God  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  term ; 
and  this  God  they  held  to  be  identical  with  the  God  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Hence  Justin  could  say  with  perfect  truth  to 
his  friend  Trypho :  "  Neither  will  there  ever  be,  O  Trypho, 
nor  has  there  been  from  the  beginning,  another  God  besides 
Him  who  created  and  orderly  disposed  the  universe.  Nor 
do  we  hold  that  there  is  one  God  for  us  and  another  for  you ; 
but  that  very  one  we  consider  to  be  God,  who  led  your 
fathers  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.  .  .  .  Neither  do  we  hope  in 
any  other,  for  there  is  no  other,  but  in  Him  in  whom  you 
also  hope,  the  God  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob."  13 

And  yet,  notwithstanding  his  emphatic  statement  that  there 
is  only  one  God,  Justin  does  not  hesitate  to  tell  his  friend  that 
there  is  another  one  to  whom  this  name  applies.  "  I  shall 
endeavor,"  he  says,  "to  convince  you,  since  indeed  you  under 
stand  the  Scriptures,  of  what  I  say,  namely,  that  there  is 
and  is  said  to  be  under  the  Creator  of  all  things  another 
God  and  Lord,  who  is  also  called  Angel,  because  He  announces 
to  men  whatever  the  Creator  of  all  things  wishes  to  make 
known  to  them."  14  True,  there  is  only  one  God,  but  in  this 
one  God  there  is  "  another  God  and  Lord." 

Nor  is  there  a  contradiction  in  this;  for  the  author  says: 
"  Referring  to  the  Scriptures,  I  shall  try  to  convince  you,  that 
this  very  one  who  is  said  to  have  appeared  to  Abraham  and 
Jacob  and  Moses,  and  who  is  taught  in  the  Scripture  to  be 
God,  is  another  besides  Him  who  created  all  things  —  another, 

"Dial.   II.  ^Ibid.  56. 


SECOND-CENTURY  APOLOGISTS  119 

I  say,  numerically,  not  in  sense,"  that  is,  in  being.15  So  there 
are  not  really  two  Gods,  but  two  divine  terms,  and  they 
are  one  God. 

How  is  this  to  be  explained?  The  author  tells  us  a  little 
further  on.  "  By  another  testimony  from  the  Scriptures  I 
shall  also  prove  to  you,  my  friends,  that  in  the  beginning, 
before  all  created  things,  God  brought  forth  from  His  own 
self  a  certain  rational  power,  which  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  also 
called  the  glory  of  God,  and  again  the  Son,  Wisdom,  Angel, 
God,  the  Lord  and  Word."  16  God,  therefore,  has  a  Son, 
begotten  of  His  own  self,  who  for  that  reason  is  also  God. 
He  is  indeed  said  to  be  "  a  certain  rational  power,"  "  the  glory 
of  God,"  and  "  wisdom,"  but  not  in  an  impersonal  sense;  for 
He  is  distinct  from  the  Creator,  not  in  name  only,  but  numeri 
cally.  "  Not  as  the  light  is  in  name  only  distinct  from  the 
sun,  but  numerically  He  is  something  else."  1T  Hence  those 
"  who  say  that  the  Son  is  The  Father,  are  convicted  of  error; 
because  neither  do  they  know  the  Father,  nor  are  they  aware 
that  the  Father  of  all  things  has  a  Son.  And  He,  as  He  is 
the  first-begotten  Word  of  God,  is  also  God/' 18 

The  Word,  then,  is  begotten  by  the  Father;  brought  forth 
by  him  as  His  Son.  How  is  this  to  be  understood?  The 
author  tries  to  illustrate  it  by  two  examples,  which,  whilst 
they  are  necessarily  inadequate,  still  make  clear  his  mind. 
The  first  is  taken  from  human  speech.  Thought  may  be 
considered  as  a  mental  word,  conceived  by  the  mind,  and 
when  we  utter  it,  we  in  a  manner  bring  it  forth.  In  this  there 
is  no  severing  of  parts,  nor  are  we  by  this  utterance  deprived 
of  the  mental  word.  In  some  such  manner  must  we  under 
stand  the  divine  generation  of  the  Word  of  God.  He  re 
mains  in  the  Father  and  is  one  with  the  Father,  and  yet  He 
is  distinct. 

The  second  example  is  taken  from  a  fire  at  which  another 
fire  is  lit.  Although  it  communicates  itself,  yet  it  is  not 
thereby  diminished,  but  remains  in  the  same  state  in  which  it 
was  before.  Similarly  in  the  generation  of  the  Word  the 

"Ibid.  56;  Cfr.  58,  59.  17  Ibid.  128. 

« Ibid.  61.  is  i  Apol  63> 


120  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

Father  indeed  communicates  His  being  to  the  Son,  but  He 
does  so  without  change.19 

When  did  this  generation  take  place  ?  St.  Justin  says,  "  in 
the  beginning,"  "  before  all  things  created." 20  Does  this 
mean  eternity  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term?  The  author 
does  not  say  so  in  so  many  words,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  this  is  his  meaning.  For  the  source  of  the  Word's  di 
vinity  is  precisely  His  generation  by  the  Father,21  so  that  His 
divine  sonship  is  necessarily  coextensive  in  duration  with  His 
divinity,  and  therefore  obviously  from  all  eternity.  Whatever 
may  be  said  in  other  texts  about  a  sort  of  second  generation 
in  view  of  the  creation  of  the  world,  it  is  sufficiently  plain 
that  in  the  author's  mind  this  had  no  bearing  upon  the  divine 
sonship  of  the  Word.  He  was  Word  and  Son  and  God  before 
all  ages,  in  every  respect  coeternal  with  the  Father. 

And  what  St.  Justin  thus  sets  forth  with  considerable  atten 
tion  to  details,  we  find  in  substance  also  advanced  by  the  other 
Apologists.  Thus  Athenagoras,  although  strongly  emphasiz 
ing  the  absolute  oneness  of  God,22  points  out  to  his  pagan 
readers  that  this  one  God  has  a  Son,  the  Word,  through  whom 
He  created  and  disposed  all  things.  And  though  distinct  from 
the  Father,  because  He  is  the  Son,  He  is  nevertheless  one 
with  the  Father.  The  Son  is  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father 
is  in  the  Son,  through  the  union  and  the  power  of  the 
Spirit.23 

Similarly  Theophilus,  who  says  that  "  the  Word  was  always 
existing  in  the  heart  of  God.  Before  anything  was  made, 
the  Word  was  the  counselor  of  the  Creator."  24  "  And  this 
the  Holy  Scriptures  teach  us,  and  as  many  as  were  inspired 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  among  whom  was  John,  saying :  '  In  the 
beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,'  thus 
teaching  that  in  the  beginning  God  alone  was  and  in  Him 
was  the  Word.  Then  he  adds :  '  And  the  Word  was  God, 
all  things  were  made  by  Him,  and  without  Him  nothing  was 
made/  The  Word,  therefore,  as  He  is  God  and  born  of 

19  Dial.  61.  22  Leg.  pro  Christ.  8. 

20  Ibid.  48,  61,  62;  cfr.  II  Apol.  6.         23  ibid.  10. 

21 1  Apol.  63.  24  Ad  Autolyc.  2,  22. 


SECOND-CENTURY  APOLOGISTS  121 

God,  the  Father  of  all  things  sends  into  whatever  place  He 
wishes."  25 

The  same  views  we  find  expressed  in  the  Letter  to  Diog- 
netus,  the  unknown  author  of  which  calls  Christ  the  beloved, 
the  proper,  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God;  the  holy  and  incom 
prehensible  Logos,  who  is  not  an  angel,  but  the  creator  and 
fashioner  of  the  universe.  The  Father  sent  Him  into  the 
world  both  as  God  and  as  man,  that  He  might  call  all  men  to 
salvation.26  He  is  the  proper  Son  of  God,  given  for  the  re 
demption  of  us  all ;  the  holy,  the  incorruptible,  the  immortal.27 
He  is  the  Word  of  God,  who  was  from  the  beginning,  the 
eternal,  who  is  ever  born  again  in  the  hearts  of  the  saints.28 

Again,  Aristides  tells  his  readers  that  Christians  derive  their 
name  from  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  "  He  is  confessed  to 
be  the  Son  of  the  most  high  God,  who  in  the  Holy  Spirit 
descended  from  heaven  for  the  salvation  of  men.  .  .  .  They 
acknowledge  the  Creator  and  Fashioner  of  all  things  in  His 
only-begotten  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  besides  Him 
they  venerate  no  other  god."  29  Melito  of  Sardis  says  that 
the  same  Christ  is  both  God  and  man,  having  two  natures, 
the  divine  and  the  human ;  and  although  here  on  earth  He  hid 
His  divinity  under  the  lowliness  of  the  flesh,  He  is  neverthe 
less  true  and  eternal  God.30  Even  Tatian,  who,  as  we  shall 
see  below,  has  some  very  strange  expressions,  states  quite 
plainly :  "  God  was  in  the  beginning,  and  the  beginning  we 
understand  to  be  the  power  of  the  Word.  .  .  .  By  Him  and  by 
the  Word,  who  was  in  Him,  all  things  were  sustained.  .  .  . 
The  Word  was  born  by  a  communication,  not  by  abscission. 
.  .  .  Similarly  as  when  from  one  torch  many  fires  are  lit.  .  .  . 
Thus  the  Word,  proceeding  from  the  power  of  the  Father, 
did  not  cause  Him  to  be  without  the  Word."  31 

Gathering  all  this  together,  it  appears  that  regarding  the 
matter  in  question  three  points  were  quite  clear  and  fixed 
in  the  minds  of  the  Apologists.  i°.  That  there  is  only  one 

25  Ibid.  29  Apol.  15. 

26  Ad  Diognet.  6,  1 1 ;  7.  30  Fragm.  7. 

27  Ibid.  9,  2,  4.  31  Adv.  Graecos,  5. 

28  Ibid.  II,  3  sqq. 


122  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

true  God,  eternal  and  unchangeable.  2°.  That  the  Word  is 
in  a  proper  sense  the  Son  of  God,  distinct  from  the  Father 
as  Son,  yet  one  with  Him  as  God.  3°.  That  the  generation 
of  the  Son,  as  the  source  of  His  true  divinity,  is  eternal. 

That  all  this  is  perfectly  orthodox  need  not  be  pointed  out. 
It  was  the  faith  of  the  Church  at  the  time,  as  it  had  always 
been,  and  later  on  it  formed  the  substance  of  the  Nicene  defi 
nition.  It  may  be  noted,  too,  that  in  the  texts  thus  far  cited 
we  have  chiefly  statements  of  facts,  no  explanations  being 
attempted  by  the  authors,  except  that  here  and  there  they 
introduce  a  few  examples  by  way  of  illustration.  Thus  far, 
then,  they  may  be  taken  simply  as  witnesses  of  tradition,  and 
as  such  they  are  safe  guides.  It  is  only  when  they  venture  to 
give  their  own  views  as  Christian  philosophers,  that  they 
begin  to  flounder;  though  even  in  this  respect  it  may  be  said 
that  things  look  worse  than  they  really  are. 

The  chief  difficulties  may  be  reduced  to  the  following  points. 
i°.  The  Word,  though  God,  is  nevertheless  "under  the  Cre 
ator  of  all  things."32  The  Father  is  "o  fcos,"  the  God, 
the  Word  is  simply  God.33  2°.  The  Word  is  in  some  way 
uttered  or  brought  forth  ad  extra  at  the  time  and  in  view 
of  the  creation  of  the  world.  He  is  the  Father's  minister, 
through  whom  the  Father  acts  upon  the  world  of  created 
beings.34  3°.  In  the  Theophanies  of  the  Old  Testament  it 
was  always  the  Son  who  appeared.35  The  Father  is  "  invisible 
and  impassible,  who  can  neither  be  understood  nor  be  .com 
prehended,"  who  dwells  in  light  inaccessible.36 

From  this  it  would  seem  that  the  Apologists  somehow  sub 
ordinated  the  Son  to  the  Father,  and  that  they  ascribed  to 
Him  some  sort  of  temporal  generation.  There  are  many 
authors,  and  some  of  them  are  Catholics,  who  hold  this  view. 
But  all  things  considered,  it  appears  perhaps  more  probable 
that  the  Apologists  intended  neither  the  one  nor  the  other. 
The  very  fact  that  they  derive  the  divinity  of  the  Word  from 

32  Justin,  Dial.  ^6.  Graecos,  5;   Theoph.   Ad  Autol.  2, 

33  Id.  I  AOOI.   13.  22. 

34  Id.    II    Apol.   6 ;    Tatian,   Adv.          35  Justin,  Dial.  127 ;  Athenag.  Leg. 

pro  Christ.  10.  36  Ibid. 


SECOND-CENTURY  APOLOGISTS  123 

His  generation  by  the  Father,  justifies  them  in  placing  Him 
"  sub  Creatore  universorum,"  not  indeed  in  respect  of  the 
perfection  of  His  being,  but  ratione  originis.  In  this  sense 
also,  the  Father  is  "6  0eds,"  the  God,  because  unbegbtten 
and  underived  Himself,  He  is  the  source  and  origin  of  the 
Son.  Hence  they  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  the  Father 
and  the  Son  are  one.37  There  is  a  difference  between  the  two, 
but  that  does  not  touch  the  divine  nature  which  is  possessed 
by  both. 

Nor  is  there  anything  strange  in  the  fact  that  they  speak 
of  the  Word  as  the  intermediary  and  organ  of  creation;  for 
as  Word  He  is  the  Father's  "  thought,"  the  Father's  "  mind," 
the  Father's  "  practical  knowledge,"  through  which  the  creative 
fiat  goes  forth.  In  itself  this  implies  no  essential  subordina 
tion,  and  hence  even  Theophilus  coordinates  the  Word  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  with  the  Father  in  the  work  of  creation. 
Commenting  on  the  words  of  Genesis,  "  Let  us  make  man  to 
our  image  and  likeness,"  he  says :  "  But  these  words  He  did 
not  direct  to  any  one  else  than  to  His  Word  and  His  Wis 
dom  " ;  where  Wisdom  stands  for  the  Holy  Spirit.38 

Apparently  there  is  greater  difficulty  in  giving  an  orthodox 
interpretation  of  what  the  Apologists,  especially  Tatian  and 
Theophilus,  say  about  the  Word  being  brought  forth  ad  extra 
at  the  time  of  creation.  They  distinguish  between  the  Word 
as  contained  from  all  eternity  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father, 
the  Ao'yos  £vSia0eros,  and  the  Word  as  being  uttered  in  view 
of  the  creative  work,  the  Ao'yos  7rpo</>opiKo<?.  Thus  Theophilus 
says  that  the  "  Word  was  always  existing  in  the  heart 
of  God.  Because  before  anything  was  made,  God  used  It 
as  His  counselor;  for  it  is  His  mind  and  His  judgment.  But 
when  God  wished  to  create  those  things  which  He  had  de 
termined  upon,  He  brought  forth  this  Word  outwardly,  the 
first-born  of  creatures;  however  not  in  such  a  way  as  to  be 
deprived  of  the  World,  but  bringing  forth  the  Word  He  re 
mained  ever  united  to  the  same." 39  And  Tatian  states : 
"  By  the  will  of  His  (God's)  simplicity  the  Word  leaped  forth; 

37  Athenag.  Leg.  pro  Christ.  10.  39  Ibid.  2,  22. 

38  Theoph.  Ad.  Autolyc.  2,  18. 


I24  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

but  the  Word,  not  going  forth  into  emptiness,  becomes  the 
first-born  of  the  Father."  40  And  this  he  illustrates  by  the 
example  of  a  torch  from  which  other  torches  are  lit,  as  already 
explained  in  a  preceding  paragraph. 

The  terms  here  used  appear  at  first  sight  very  strange ;  but 
as  all  things  were  created  through  the  Word,  is  it  not  possible 
that  these  authors  intended  merely  to  indicate  an  outward 
manifestation  of  the  Word,  as  it  is  de  facto  contained  in  the 
created  world?  This  interpretation  appears  at  least  much 
more  consistent  with  what  they  say  about  the  divinity  of  the 
Son  and  the  unchangeableness  of  God  than  any  other  that 
implies  a  change  in  the  inner  state  of  the  Word.  For  it  must 
be  remembered  that  a  change  in  the  Word  necessarily  implies 
a  change  in  the  unchangeable  God,  since,  as  was  pointed  out 
above,  in  the  Apologists'  view  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  one. 

The  further  difficulty  drawn  from  the  Old  Testament  Theo- 
phanies,  in  which,  according  to  the  Apologists,  it  was  always 
the  Son  who  appeared,  has  in  reality  but  little  bearing  on  the 
matter  in  hand.  For  these  appearances  of  God  among  men 
are  very  properly  appropriated  to  the  Son,  both  because  of 
His  procession  from  the  Father  and  His  position  in  the  divine 
economy  of  salvation.  Hence  Theophilus  says  very  much 
to  the  point :  "  The  Word,  therefore,  since  He  is  God  and 
born  of  God,  the  Father  sends,  when  He  wishes,  into  a  deter 
mined  place,  and  when  He  has  arrived  there,  He  is  heard  and 
seen,  being  sent  by  the  Father."  41  Hence  the  reason  why 
the  Son  is  sent  by  the  Father  is  precisely  because  "  He  is  God 
and  born  of  God."  The  Father,  being  underived,  cannot  be 
sent.  Justin  uses  almost  the  same  terms,  when  he  says  that 
no  one  ever  saw  the  Father,  but  they  saw  Him  who,  being 
God  and  the  Son  of  God,  carries  out  the  will  of  the  Father.42 

To  this  interpretation  it  is  commonly  objected  that  the 
Apologists  conceived  the  Father  to  be  so  transcendent  as  to  be 
incapable  of  coming  in  direct  contact  with  finite  and  contingent 
beings,  and  that  for  this  reason  they  attributed  these  appear 
ances  to  the  Son.  However  there  does  not  seem  to  be  much 

40  Adv.  Graecos,  5.  42  Dial.  127. 

41  Ad  Autolyc.  2,  22. 


SECOND-CENTURY  APOLOGISTS 


125 


force  in  this  objection.  For,  in  the  first  place,  the  Apologists 
hold  that  the  Son  is  of  the  same  substance  as  the  Father, 
being  not  made,43  but  begotten,44  alone  God's  own  proper 
Son,45  Himself  God,46  and  one  with  the  Father; 47  hence,  logi 
cally  at  least,  the  Father  cannot  be  more  transcendent  than 
the  Son.  In  the  next  place,  touching  the  Apologists'  view 
concerning  the  transcendence  of  the  Father,  there  seems  to  be 
a  good  deal  of  exaggeration  in  the  works  of  modern  critics. 
For  if  Theophilus  could  write:  "Not  only  is  it  proper  to 
the  most  high  and  omnipotent  and  true  God  to  be  every 
where,  but  also  to  see  all  things  and  to  hear  all  things,  although 
He  cannot  be  contained  in  any  place,"  4S  it  would  seem  that 
his  idea  about  the  transcendence  of  God  was  very  much  the 
same  as  that  of  modern  theologians. 

Hence,  taking  it  all  in  all,  these  alleged  aberrations  of  the 
second-century  Apologists  appear  to  have  no  very  solid  foun 
dation  in  fact.  The  terms  used  are  not  rarely  inaccurate,  and 
the  ideas  expressed  by  them  may  at  times  be  hazy,  but  the 
doctrines  thus  imperfectly  set  forth  seem  at  least  to  admit  of 
an  orthodox  interpretation.  Dogmatically  it  matters  little 
what  was  really  in  the  minds  of  these  writers,  as  their  tentative 
explanations  of  abstruse  theological  problems  were  merely  the 
personal  views  of  men  who  tried  to  give  a  rational  setting 
to  the  truths  of  faith.  If  they  erred  in  this,  their  error  can 
not  be  laid  at  the  doors  of  the  Church.  But  as  a  matter  of 
historical  interest,  it  is  well  to  hear  also  the  other  side.49 

Whilst  the  Apologists  thus  enlarge  upon  the  divinity  of  the 
Son,  and  His  relation  to  the  Father,  they  say  comparatively 
little  about  the  Holy  Ghost,  contenting  themselves  with  occa 
sional  statements  of  what  is  contained  in  Scriptural  data.  The 
reason  of  this  difference  of  treatment  arises,  no  doubt,  from 
the  general  scope  of  their  works;  although  Harnack  contends 
that  in  their  system  of  theology  there  was  no  room  for  the 

43  Athenag.  Leg.  pro  Christ.  10.  48  Ad  Autolyc.  2,  3. 

4*  Ibid. ;  Justin,  Dial.  61 ;  Tatian,  49  Cfr.   D'Ales,  La  Theologie  de 

5,  7.  Tertullien,  who  gives  a  succinct  but 

45  Justin,  I  Apol.  23 ;  II  Apol.  6.  clear   exposition   of    the  points   in 

46  Justin,  I  Apol.  63.  question,  pp.  84-96. 

47  Athenag.  o.  c.  10. 


I26  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

Holy  Spirit.  The  truth  is,  that  in  reference  to  the  Holy 
Spirit  there  was  no  immediate  call  for  philosophical  and  theo 
logical  discussions,  and  hence  they  said  little  about  Him.  Yet 
incidentally  they  refer  to  Him  as  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Pro 
phetic  Spirit,  the  image  and  similitude  of  God,  who  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son  is  the  author  of  creation,  who  is  derived 
from  the  Father  and  was  associated  with  the  Son  in  the 
work  of  redemption.50  Here  and  there  they  use  comparisons 
that  would  seem  to  indicate  only  a  modal  distinction,  but  in 
other  places  they  name  Him  with  the  Father  and  the  Son  as 
a  third  divine  term  in  the  Godhead,  as  will  appear  from  the 
following  paragraph. 

The  mystery  of  the  Blessed  Trinity  is  not  explicitly  discussed 
by  the  Apologists,  yet  on  occasion  they  express  their  views 
in  a  manner  which  shows  that  they  were  well  acquainted  with 
the  substance  of  the  doctrine  as  it  was  formulated  at  a  later 
date.  Thus  Theophilus  states  that  the  three  days  which  pre 
ceded  the  creation  of  the  light  were  an  image  of  the  Trinity, 
of  God,  His  Word,  and  His  Wisdom ;  understanding  by  Wis 
dom  the  Holy  Spirit.51  The  doctrine  was  still  more  clearly 
expressed  by  Athenagoras,  in  his  Apology  to  the  Emperors. 
After  showing  that  the  Christians  are  not  atheists,  because 
they  believe  in  a  spiritual  and  immutable  God,  and  in  the  Son 
of  God,  who  is  the  Word  of  the  Father,  and  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,  who  emanates  from  God  as  a  ray  of  light  from  the 
sun,  he  concludes  with  the  very  pertinent  question :  "  Who 
then  would  not  be  astonished  to  hear  these  men  called  atheists 
who  proclaim  a  God  the  Father,  a  Son  who  is  God,  and  a 
Holy  Spirit;  who  show  their  power  in  the  unity  and  their 
distinction  by  the  rank  ?  "  52  And  in  another  paragraph  of  the 
same  Apology  he  states :  "  The  Christians  know  a  God  and 
His  Word,  what  is  the  union  of  the  Son  with  the  Father, 
what  is  the  communication  of  the  Father  with  the  Son,  what 
is  the  union  and  the  distinction  of  those  who  are  thus  united, 
the  Spirit,  the  Son,  the  Father."  53  Almost  the  same  terms 

50  Justin,  Apol.  1,6;  13 ;  Athenag.          52  Supplic.  10. 
10 ;  12 ;  24 ;  Tatian,  7 ;  12 ;  13.  B3  Ibid. 

51  Ad  Autolyc.  2,  15. 


SECOND-CENTURY  APOLOGISTS  127 

are  used  by  St.  Justin.54  From  this  somewhat  elementary 
statement  of  the  doctrine  to  its  formal  definition  not  quite 
two  centuries  later,  the  cry  is  not  so  very  far. 

Of  the  other  doctrines  found  in  the  Apologists  a  brief 
summary  will  suffice,  as,  with  a  few  exceptions,  they  are  but 
a  restatement  of  what  is  contained  in  the  writings  of  the 
Apostolic  Fathers.  The  following  points  may  be  noticed : 

i°.  Jesus  Christ,  says  Melito  of  Sardis,  though  God  eternal, 
is  also  man ;  a  perfect  man,  with  a  body  and  a  soul  like  ours. 
He  has  two  natures,  and  yet  He  is  only  one  person.55  This 
unity  of  person  and  distinction  of  natures  is  also  brought  out 
by  St.  Justin,  when  he  says  that  Jesus  Christ  consists  of  a 
body,  the  Logos,  and  a  soul.56 

2°.  The  God-Man  is  not  only  our  Redeemer,  but  He  is  so 
by  a  vicarious  substitution:  for  all  men  were  under  a  curse 
because  of  their  sins,  and  hence  the  Father  required  that  His 
Christ,  who  was  without  sin,  should  take  upon  Himself  the 
malediction  of  us  all.  We  were  accursed  and  He  suffered 
for  us.  In  reference  to  the  redemption  He  was  the  representa 
tive  of  the  human  race;  in  Him  all  mankind  was  included.57 

3°.  The  first  creatures  of  God  are  the  angels,  who  were 
called  into  being  before  man.  They  were  created  intelligent 
and  free,  and  made  to  serve  God.  They  are  God's  ministers 
for  the  government  of  the  world.  Several  of  them  sinned. 
The  good  angels  are  venerated  by  the  faithful,  but  are  not 
adored  as  God.  The  devil  was  the  author  of  Adam's  fall.58 

4°.  Man  is  defined  by  St.  Justin  as  a  "  rational  being  com 
posed  of  a  body  and  a  soul."  59  With  this  definition  the 
others  agree,  all  of  them  being  dichotomists.  They  emphasize 
man's  freedom  of  action,  and  point  out  that  he  was  created 
to  observe  the  law  of  justice  and  to  fit  himself  for  the  blessed 
ness  of  heaven.  "  God  created  men  and  angels  free  beings," 
writes  Justin,  "  and  according  to  His  good  pleasure  deter- 

64  Apol.  1,13.  58  Justin,    Dial.    88;    Tatian,    7; 

55Fragm.  6,  7,  8,  14,  15,  16.  Athenag.  10;  Justin,  Apol.  II,  2,  5. 

56  Apol.  II,  TO.  59De  Resurrect,  fragm.  24;  Ath- 

57  Justin,  Apol.  I,  63 ;  Dial.  41,  95,  enag.  10. 
115;  Melito,  fragm.  13. 


128  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

mined  the  time  during  which  they  should  use  their  free  will 
in  observing  the  law  of  justice."60  And  again:  "That 
every  one  shall  be  punished  or  rewarded  according  to  his  mer 
its,  we  have  been  taught  by  the  Prophets;  and  this  we  can 
show  to  be  true.  ..."  "  For  he  (the  just)  would  not  be 
worthy  of  reward  if  he  did  not  of  himself  choose  what  is 
good,  but  were  predetermined  thereto  by  nature;  nor  would 
the  wicked  be  deserving  of  punishment,  if  they  were  not  evil 
of  their  own  free  will."  61  Athenagoras  calls  attention  to  the 
ultimate  end  which  God  had  in  view  in  the  creation  of  man. 
He  did  not  create  human  beings  for  the  advantage  of  other 
creatures,  nor  for  His  own  advantage,  but  on  account  of  Him 
self,  "  propter  se,"  so  that  He  might  show  forth  His  wisdom 
and  goodness.  Secondarily,  however,  man  was  created  for  his 
own  happiness,  that  he  might  live  forever.62 

The  natural  immortality  of  man's  soul  is  clearly  taught 
by  the  unknown  author  of  the  Letter  to  Diognetus,  who  states 
that  "  the  immortal  soul  dwells  in  a  mortal  body  " ; 63  but  it 
appears  that  this  truth  was  denied,  or  at  least  called  in  ques 
tion  by  some  of  the  other  Apologists.  Thus  Tatian  and  Theo- 
philus  point  out  that  immortality  is  a  reward  granted  to  the 
just  and  a  punishment  inflicted  on  the  wicked.64  Justin  ap 
parently  takes  the  same  view,  for  he  writes :  "  God  alone, 
because  unproduced,  is  not  subject  to  corruption,  and  there 
fore  He  is  God;  but  all  other  beings  are  produced  and  con 
sequently  under  the  law  of  corruption,  and  this  is  the  reason 
why  souls  die  and  are  punished."  65  And  a  little  further  on : 
"  As  man  does  not  always  exist,  and  the  union  between  soul 
and  body  is  not  perpetual,  but  when  the  time  comes  that  this 
harmony  should  be  destroyed,  the  soul  leaves  the  body  and 
man  ceases  to  be ;  so  in  like  manner,  when  it  behooves  the  soul 
no  longer  to  exist,  the  vital  spirit  leaves  it,  and  the  soul  ceases 
to  be,  and  returns  to  the  source  whence  it  was  drawn  forth."  66 
Some  interpret  this  as  simply  a  denial  of  essential  immortality, 

60  Dial.  102.  64  Tatian,  13;  Theophil.  2,  19,  27. 

61 1  Apol.  43-  65  Dial.  5. 

62  De  Resurrect.  Mort.  12.  6«  Ibid.  6. 

63  Ad  Diognet.  7,  8. 


SECOND-CENTURY  APOLOGISTS  129 

which  can  be  predicated  only  of  God;  but  that  does  not  seem 
to  be  the  author's  meaning. 

In  connection  with  man's  origin,  the  Apologists  make  sev 
eral  statements  which  may  well  be  taken  to  imply  their  belief 
in  original  sin ;  although  most  modern  critics  are  rather  scepti 
cal  on  this  point.  Thus  St.  Justin,  without  making  any  dis 
tinction  between  adults  and  children,  states  that  baptism  is  a 
regeneration  that  frees  the  recipient  from  sin;  also  that  the 
Son  of  God  became  man  and  was  crucified  for  the  human 
race,  which  had  by  Adam's  fall  come  under  the  power  of 
death  and  the  deceits  of  the  devil.67  Tatian  says  that  we  are 
born  to  die,  but  we  die  through  our  own  fault  because  we 
were  sold  through  sin.68  Theophilus  teaches  that  all  the 
labors  and  sorrows  and  afflictions  of  human  life,  and  finally 
death,  flow  from  Adam's  sin  as  from  a  fountain  of  evil.69  It 
is  true,  these  and  similar  statements  may,  absolutely  speaking, 
refer  merely  to  the  transmission  of  physical  evils;  but  it  is 
at  least  very  probable  that  they  also  bear  reference  to  the 
inheritance  of  moral  guilt. 

5°.  Of  the  Church  very  little  is  said  by  the  Apologists,  as 
the  scope  of  their  work  did  not  call  for  remarks  on  this 
subject;  nevertheless  St.  Justin  gives  us  an  outline  which  it 
will  be  helpful  to  set  down  in  this  place.  The  Church,  he 
says,  has  her  origin  in  Christ,  whose  name  she  bears.  She 
"  has  sprung  from  His  name  and  partakes  of  His  name."  70 
Between  Christ  and  His  Church  exists  the  most  intimate  rela 
tionship,  much  resembling  that  which  results  between  man 
and  woman  when  they  are  united  in  wedlock.  "  The  mar 
riages  of  Jacob  were  types  of  that  which  Christ  was  about  to 
accomplish.  For  it  was  not  lawful  for  Jacob  to  marry  two 
sisters  at  once.  And  he  served  Laban  for  his  daughters; 
and  being  deceived  over  the  younger,  he  again  served  seven 
years.  Now  Leah,"  Justin  tells  Trypho,  "  is  your  people  and 
synagogue;  but  Rachel  is  our  Church."  71 

Hence  the  Church  has  taken  the  place  of  the  synagogue,  and 

" 1  Apol.  61.  70  Dial.  63. 

68  Ad  Grsecos  11;  cfr.  7.  7i  Ibid.  134. 

69  Ad  Autolyc.  2.  25. 


130 


THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 


the  Christians  are  now  the  people  of  God,  "  a  holy  people/' 72 
For  this  reason  no  one  is  ever  admitted  into  the  Church  unless 
he  has  accepted  the  Christian  faith  and  is  regenerated  in  the 
waters  of  baptism.  "  As  many  as  are  persuaded  and  believe 
that  what  we  teach  is  true  and  are  of  a  mind  to  live  accord 
ingly,  are  instructed  to  pray  and  to  entreat  God,  with  fasting, 
for  the  remission  of  their  sins  that  are  past,  we  praying  and 
fasting  with  them."  73  Then  "  they  are  brought  by  us  to  a 
place  where  there  is  water  and  are  regenerated  in  the  same 
manner  in  which  we  were  regenerated.  For,  in  the  name  of 
God,  the  Father  and  the  Lord  of  the  universe,  and  of  our  Sav 
iour  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  then  receive  the 
washing  with  water."  And  this  is  necessary ;  "  for  Christ 
also  said,  *  Except  ye  be  born  again,  ye  shall  not  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven/  "  74 

Hence  baptism  is  a  new  birth,  the  beginning  of  a  new  life 
in  the  society  of  those  whom  God  has  chosen  as  His  people. 
As  members  of  this  society  the  faithful  must  first  of  all  be 
mindful  of  unity,  since  they  constitute  but  one  body.  "  Such 
a  thing  also  you  may  witness  in  the  body :  although  the  mem 
bers  are  numerated  as  many,  all  are  called  one  and  constitute 
a  body.  For,  indeed,  a  people  and  a  church,  though  consist 
ing  of  many  individuals  in  number,  form  a  single  entity  and 
are  spoken  of  and  addressed  by  a  single  title."  75  Heresy, 
therefore,  and  schism  are  directly  opposed  to  the  fundamental 
idea  of  the  Church,  and  those  who  are  guilty  of  the  one  or 
the  other  are  cut  off  from  the  fellowship  of  the  faithful. 
There  are  many  of  this  kind,  as  Christ  Himself  foretold  that 
there  would  be.  "  Some  are  called  Marcians,  and  some  Valen- 
tinians,  and  some  Basilidians,  and  some  Saturnillians,  and 
others  by  other  names."  "  But  with  these  we  have  nothing  in 
common,  since  we  know  them  to  be  atheists,  impious,  unright 
eous  and  sinful,  and  confessors  of  Jesus  only  in  name  instead 
of  being  worshipers  of  Him."  76 

This  unity  of  the  Church  is  preserved  by  authorized  teachers, 

72  Ibid.   119.  75Dial.  42. 

73  I.  Apol.,  6l  76  Ibid.  35. 
7*  Ibid. 


SECOND-CENTURY  APOLOGISTS  131 

whose  doctrine  is  in  accordance  with  the  Apostolic  tradition. 
The  Church  teaches  authoritatively  as  a  mother  teaches  her 
children.77  There  is  one  who  presides  over  the  assembled 
faithful  in  each  community,  performs  the  liturgical  services, 
instructs  and  exhorts  the  people,  and  has  charge  of  the  alms 
for  the  sick  and  the  poor.78  This,  of  course,  is  the  bishop, 
although  Justin  does  not  call  him  by  that  name.  Then  there 
are  also  deacons,  who  distribute  the  consecrated  elements  to 
the  faithful. 

A  further  aid  to  the  preservation  of  unity  is  the  common 
worship  in  which  the  newly  baptized  immediately  take  part, 
and  at  which  they  must  thereafter  be  present  at  stated  times. 
"  After  we  have  thus  washed  him  who  has  been  convinced  and 
has  assented  to  our  teaching,  we  bring  him  to  the  place  where 
those  who  are  called  brethren  are  assembled,  in  order  that  we 
may  offer  hearty  prayers  in  common,  both  for  ourselves  and 
for  the  baptized  person  and  for  all  others  in  every  place."  79 
Then,  "  on  the  day  called  Sunday,  all  who  live  in  the  cities 
or  in  the  country  gather  together  in  one  place,  and  the  memoirs 
of  the  Apostles  or  the  writings  of  the  Prophets  are  read  as 
long  as  time  permits;  and  when  the  reader  has  ceased,  the 
president  verbally  instructs  and  exhorts  to  the  imitation  of 
these  good  things."  80 

"  Next  there  is  brought  to  the  president  of  the  brethren 
bread  and  a  cup  of  wine  mixed  with  water;  and  he,  taking 
them,  gives  praise  and  glory  to  the  Father  of  all,  through  the 
name  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  offers  thanks  at 
considerable  length  for  our  being  counted  worthy  to  receive 
these  things  at  His  hands.  When  he  has  concluded  the  prayers 
and  thanksgivings,  all  the  people  present  express  their  assent 
by  saying  Amen.  Then  those  among  us  who  are  called  dea 
cons  take  the  bread  and  the  wine  mixed  with  water,  over 
which  the  prayer  of  thanksgiving  has  been  said,  and  distribute 
them  to  each  one  of  those  who  are  present,  and  also  carry 
them  to  such  as  are  absent."  81 

77  De  Resurrect.  5  ;  Dial.  82.  80  Ibid.  67. 

78  Apol.  I,  65,  67.  81  Ibid.  65. 

79  Ibid.  65.    ' 


I32  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

"  Now  this  food  is  called  by  us  the  Eucharist,  of  which  no 
one  is  allowed  to  partake,  except  he  has  been  baptized,  be 
lieves  what  we  teach,  and  observes  the  commandments  of 
Christ.  For  not  as  common  bread  and  common  drink  do  we 
receive  it;  but  in  like  manner  as  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour, 
having  been  made  flesh  by  the  word  of  God,  hath  taken  both 
flesh  and  blood  for  our  salvation,  so  likewise  have  we  been 
taught  that  the  food,  which  is  blessed  by  the  prayer  of  His 
word,  and  from  which  our  flesh  and  blood  by  conversion  are 
nourished,  is  the  flesh  and  blood  of  that  Jesus  who  was  made 
flesh.  For  the  Apostles,  in  their  commentaries  which  are 
called  Gospels,  have  handed  it  down  that  Jesus  had  so  com 
manded/'  82 

Then  follow  the  words  of  the  institution,  together  with  a 
brief  reference  to  the  cult  of  Mithra,  in  which,  according  to 
the  author,  the  sacred  mysteries  are  imitated  through  the  insti 
gation  of  the  devil.  In  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  Justin 
points  out  that  the  prophecy  of  Malachy  is  verified  in  the 
Christian  Eucharistic  rite.  The  prophet,  he  says,  "  speaks  of 
those  Gentiles,  namely  us,  who  in  every  place  offer  sacrifice 
to  God,  that  is  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist  and  also  the  cup 
of  the  Eucharist."  83  And  this  is  indeed  a  true  sacrifice ;  for 
"  we  are  the  true  high-priestly  race  of  God,  even  as  God  Him 
self  bears  witness,  saying  that  in  every  place  among  the  Gen 
tiles  sacrifices  are  presented  to  Him,  well-pleasing  and  pure. 
Now  God  receives  sacrifices  from  no  one  except  through  His 
priests."84 

Thus,  then,  the  author  gives  us  a  fairly  complete  outline  of 
the  Church  as  a  divine  institution,  of  the  baptismal  rite,  and 
of  the  Eucharistic  worship.  In  regard  to  the  latter  he  pre 
sents  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  with  singular  completeness, 
including  the  elements  of  the  consecration,  the  change  of  these 
elements  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  the  words  by  which 
the  change  is  effected,  the  sacrificial  character  of  the  liturgical 
action,  and,  at  least  in  a  general  way,  the  order  of  divine  serv 
ice  on  Sunday.  Truly  a  precious  heirloom  of  the  distant  past ! 

82  Ibid.    66.  84  Ibid.    Il6. 

83  Dial.  41. 


SECOND-CENTURY  APOLOGISTS 


133 


6°.  The  same  author  gives  also  a  beautiful  summary  of  the 
Church's  traditional  teaching  on  Mary's  position  in  reference 
to  the  redemption.  "  The  First-Born  of  the  Father  before  all 
creatures,"  he  says,  "  became  a  man  through  the  Virgin,  that 
by  what  way  the  disobedience  arising  from  the  serpent  had  its 
beginning,  by  that  way  also  it  might  have  its  undoing.  For 
Eve,  being  a  virgin  and  undefiled,  conceiving  the  word  that 
was  from  the  serpent,  brought  forth  disobedience  and  death; 
but  the  Virgin  Mary,  taking  faith  and  joy,  when  the  angel 
told  her  the  glad  tidings  (of  the  Incarnation),  answered: 
'  Let  it  be  done  unto  me  according  to  thy  word/  "  85  Mary  is 
pure  and  undefiled,  as  Eve  was  in  the  state  of  innocence,  and 
by  her  obedience  restored  what  had  been  ruined  by  the  diso 
bedience  of  Eve.  This  not  only  implies  Mary's  close  associa 
tion  with  the  Redeemer  in  the  work  of  our  salvation,  but  also 
contains  in  its  fundamental  elements  the  doctrine  of  the  Im 
maculate  Conception.  The  same  comparison  we  shall  find 
often  repeated  in  subsequent  writers. 

7°.  In  their  eschatological  views  the  Apologists  follow  the 
traditional  teaching  of  the  Church,  calling  attention  to  the  two 
advents  of  Christ,  the  one  in  the  lowliness  of  the  Incarnation, 
the  other  in  glory  at  the  end  of  time.86  Justin,  however,  holds 
that  there  will  be  a  Millennium,  when  the  just  shall  reign  with 
Christ  for  a  thousand  years.87  Until  the  end  of  that  time 
the  beatific  vision  will  be  deferred,  and  hence  after  death  even 
the  souls  of  the  just  may  in  some  way  fall  under  the  power 
of  the  demons,  although  not  to  their  destruction.  Still  he 
admits  that  the  hope  of  the  Millennium  is  not  shared  by  all.88 
In  fact,  the  more  common  opinion  is  that  there  will  be  a 
general  resurrection  followed  by  the  judgment,  and  then  either 
heaven  or  hell  according  to  each  one's  deserts.  The  material 
universe,  which  was  created  out  of  nothing,  shall  then  perish  in 
a  general  conflagration.89 

These,  then,  are  the  principal  points  that  strike  one  in  study- 

85  Dial.  100.  88Ibid.  105. 

86  Justin,   Apol.   I,   52;   Dial.  49;          89  Justin,   Dial.  45,   120;   Apol.   I, 
Tatian,  13;  Theoph.  2,  14,  15.  8,  28;  Tatian,  5;  Ad  Diognet.  10,  7. 

87  Dial.  80,  81. 


134  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

ing  the  teaching  of  the  Apologists.  Do  they  bear  the  impress 
of  secularizing  Greek  thought?  Traces  of  a  gradual  seculari 
zation  of  the  message  of  Christ?  Indications  of  faith  passing 
into  doctrine,  of  evangelical  freedom  yielding  to  the  restric 
tions  of  law  ?  The  answer  to  these  questions  may,  of  course, 
be  made  to  depend  on  one's  presuppositions.  If  one  supposes 
that  Christ  taught  no  doctrines  and  enacted  no  laws,  but  gave 
to  the  world  as  His  message  solely  the  perfect  life  He  led; 
then,  yes,  not  only  the  Apologists,  but  every  Christian  teacher, 
from  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  onward,  labored  persistently  at 
the  Hellenization  of  the  message  of  Christ.  For  they  all 
used  the  principles  of  reason,  mostly  dressed  in  Hellenic  garb, 
to  preach  Christ  and  to  explain  His  sayings  to  the  Gentile 
world.  But  who,  with  the  Gospel  records  before  him,  would 
dare  to  make  a  supposition  so  startling?  When  Christ  said: 
"  Unless  a  man  be  born  again  of  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost, 
he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  " ;  "  unless  you 
eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink  His  blood,  you  shall 
not  have  life  in  you  " ;  and  so  in  a  score  of  other  instances, 
did  He  set  forth  no  doctrines  which  His  followers  were  called 
upon  to  believe  ?  Why,  then,  did  He  say :  "  He  that  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved :  but  he  that  believeth 
not,  shall  be  condemned  ?  " 

Again,  when  He  said :  "  He  that  heareth  you,  heareth  me ; 
he  that  despiseth  you,  despiseth  me :  whatsoever  you  shall  bind 
upon  earth,  shall  be  bound  in  heaven ;  and  whatsoever  you  shall 
loose  upon  earth,  shall  be  loosed  also  in  heaven ;  as  the  Father 
hath  sent  me,  I  also  send  you,"  did  He  establish  no  law  or 
give  no  power  to  make  laws  according  to  the  future  needs  of 
the  Church?  And  if  He  did  —  if  He  did  teach  definite  doc 
trines  and  did  enact  particular  laws,  either  Himself  or  through 
others,  why  should  not  His  followers  apply  the  principles  of 
sound  philosophy,  even  though  it  was  of  Hellenic  birth,  to 
set  forth  more  clearly  the  meaning  of  these  doctrines  and 
determine  more  exactly  the  force  of  these  laws?  To  deny 
them  this  right,  to  bind  them  down  to  a  parrotlike  repetition 
of  the  Saviour's  sayings,  would  be  to  stultify  the  Son  of  God 


SECOND-CENTURY  APOLOGISTS  135 

and  bring  to  naught  the  work  which  His  Father  had  given 
Him  to  do. 

In  this  connection  mention  ought  also  to  be  made  of  a 
fragment  from  the  writings  of  Hegesippus,  the  Inscription  of 
Abercius ,  and  the  Muratorian  Canon.  They  belong  to  the 
latter  half  of  the  second  century  and  have  considerable  doc 
trinal  value. 

i°.  Hegesippus,  as  Eusebius  mentions  in  his  Ecclesiastical 
History,  was  the  author  of  a  work  in  five  books,  which  con 
tained  the  true  traditions  of  the  Apostolic  preaching.  Appar 
ently  a  native  of  Palestine,  he  traveled  from  church  to  church, 
in  order,  as  he  tells  us,  to  ascertain  the  faith  taught  in  each. 
The  fragment  in  question  contains  his  findings  in  the  churches 
of  Corinth  and  Rome.  It  reads  thus :  "  And  the  church  of 
the  Corinthians  remained  in  the  true  word  until  Primus  was 
bishop  of  Corinth  (that  is,  till  the  time  of  the  author's  visit). 
I  made  their  acquaintance  in  my  journey  to  Rome,  and  re 
mained  with  the  Corinthians  many  days,  in  which  we  were 
refreshed  with  the  true  word.  And  when  I  was  in  Rome, 
I  drew  up  a  list  of  succession  as  far  as  Anicetus,  whose  deacon 
was  Eleutherius.  And  Soter  succeeds  Anicetus,  after  whom 
Eleutherius.  And  in  each  succession  and  in  each  city  all  is 
according  to  the  ordinances  of  the  law  and  the  Prophets  and 
the  Lord."  What  a  precious  testimony  to  the  unity  of  faith 
in  those  early  days  this  is !  And  also  to  the  mode  of  govern 
ment  in  each  church,  and  to  the  early  Papal  succession,  as 
handed  down  by  one  who  knew  the  condition  of  things  from 
his  own  personal  observation. 

2°.  Abercius  was  bishop  of  Hieropolis  in  Phrygia.  About 
the  middle  of  the  second  century  he  visited  Rome,  and  on  his 
return  he  composed  an  epitaph.  Translated  freely,  it  reads: 
"  The  citizen  of  a  chosen  city,  this  monument  I  made  whilst 
still  living,  that  there  I  might  have  in  time  a  resting-place 
for  my  body ;  I  being  by  name  Abercius,  the  disciple  of  a  holy 
shepherd,  who  feeds  his  flocks  of  sheep  on  mountains  and 
plains,  and  who  has  great  eyes  that  see  everywhere.  For 
this  shepherd  taught  me  that  the  Book  of  Life  is  worthy  of 


136  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

belief.  And  to  Rome  he  sent  me  to  contemplate  majesty,  and 
to  see  a  queen  golden-robed  and  golden-sandalled;  there  also 
I  saw  a  people  having  a  shining  mark.  And  I  saw  the  land 
of  Syria  and  all  its  cities.  Nisibis  I  saw,  when  I  passed  over 
the  Euphrates.  But  everywhere  I  had  brethren.  I  had  Paul. 
.  .  .  (the  last  part  of  the  sentence  is  missing).  Faith  every 
where  led  me  forward,  and  everywhere  provided  as  my  food 
a  fish  of  exceeding  great  size  and  perfect,  which  a  holy  virgin 
drew  with  her  hands  from  a  fountain  —  and  this  faith  ever 
gives  to  its  friends  to  eat;  having  also  wine  of  great  virtue, 
and  giving  it  mingled  with  bread.  These  things  I,  Abercius, 
having  been  witness  of  them,  ordered  to  be  written  here. 
Verily  I  was  passing  through  my  seventy-second  year.  He 
that  discerneth  these  things,  a  fellow-believer,  let  him  pray 
for  Abercius.  And  no  one  shall  place  another  grave  over 
my  grave;  but  if  he  do,  he  shall  pay  to  the  treasury  of  the 
Romans  two  thousand  pieces  of  gold  and  to  my  good  native 
city  of  Hieropolis  one  thousand  pieces  of  gold." 

This  is  only  an  inscription  on  the  tomb  of  a  second  century 
Christian  bishop,  yet  its  few  lines  are.  crowded  with  informa 
tion  on  matters  of  doctrine  and  religious  practice.  Baptism 
marks  the  Christian  with  a  shining  seal,  the  Church  is  spread 
everywhere,  and  everywhere  its  members  are  brethren.  Rome 
is  the  place  where  "  majesty  "  dwells ;  obviously  a  reference 
to  the  preeminence  of  that  Church.  Christians  are  the  flock 
of  Christ  the  Holy  Shepherd,  who  bears  witness  that  the  con 
tents  of  the  Holy  Books  are  true.  Faith  provides  spiritual 
food,  a  large  and  perfect  fish,  the  symbol  of  Christ,  who  is  the 
Son  of  a  Holy  Virgin.  Not  all  understand  the  meaning  of 
this,  but  fellow-believers  do ;  and  for  them  it  is  meet  to  pray 
for  the  dead. 

3°.  The  Muratorian  Canon,  so  named  from  its  discoverer, 
L.  A.  Muratori,  contains  the  oldest  known  list  of  books  making 
up  the  New  Testament.  The  beginning  is  missing,  and  the 
first  line  of  the  preserved  text  refers  to  the  second  Gospel. 
Then  are  mentioned  the  third  and  fourth  Gospels,  of  Luke  and 
John  respectively,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  First  Epistle 
of  St.  John,  thirteen  Letters  of  St.  Paul  —  two  of  which,  one 


SECOND-CENTURY  APOLOGISTS  137 

to  the  Laodiceans  and  one  to  the  Alexandrians,  are  rejected 
as  spurious  —  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  two  other  Epistles  of  St. 
John,  his  Apocalypse,  and  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  Peter.  All 
these,  with  the  two  exceptions  indicated  above,  are  acknowl 
edged  as  canonical;  whilst  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  and  a 
number  of  Gnostic  and  Montanistic  writings  are  rejected. 
The  Shepherd,  however,  may  be  read,  but  not  publicly  in  the 
church.  Likewise  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  Peter  is  not  univer 
sally  received.  Of  our  canonical  New  Testament  books  the 
two  Epistles  of  St.  Peter,  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  and  the 
Letter  to  the  Hebrews,  are  not  mentioned;  yet  the  value  of 
the  document  consists  not  so  much  in  the  completeness  of  the 
list  of  books  it  contains,  but  rather  in  the  statement  that  the 
books  there  enumerated  are  received  as  genuine  in  the  "  Catho 
lic  Church."  Practically,  therefore,  some  fifty  years  after 
the  death  of  St.  John,  the  canon  of  New  Testament  writings 
was  fixed. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE   TEACHING   OF   ST.   IREN^US   AND   ST.   HIPPOLYTUS* 

St.  Irenseus  is  usually  associated  with  a  group  of  writers 
called  Antignostics.  This  title  is  applied  to  them  because  of 
their  strenuous  opposition  to  the  Gnostic  heresy,  which  they 
regarded  as  a  special  menace  to  the  Church.  There  was  quite 
a  large  number  of  them,  mostly  Asiatics,  but  the  works  of 
nearly  all  have  perished.  Irenaeus  was  a  prolific  writer/  as  is 
seen  from  the  frequent  references  to  his  literary  activity  by 
ancient  authors.  He  was,  moreover,  a  man  whose  opinion 
was  highly  valued  by  his  contemporaries  and  by  those  who 
came  after  him;  but,  as  happened  in  the  case  of  so  many 
other  great  men  in  those  early  times,  most  of  his  literary  pro 
ductions  have  fallen  a  prey  to  the  calamities  of  subsequent 
ages.  Aside  from  a  few  fragments,  only  two  of  his  works 
have  come  down  to  us.  One  is  a  small  treatise  preserved  in 
an  Armenian  translation,  only  recently  discovered,  under  the 
title,  Demonstration  of  Apostolic  Preaching.  The  other  is  his 
great  work  in  five  books,  entitled,  Against  Heresies.  The 
heresies  in  question  refer  chiefly  to  the  different  Gnostic  sys 
tems,  of  which  he  appears  to  have  had  intimate  and  first-hand 
knowledge. 

However,  the  scope  of  this  great  work  is  not  limited  to 
mere  polemics.  "  Whilst  refuting  the  Gnostic  error,  it  ex 
pounds  the  theory  of  the  Church  and  of  her  doctrinal  func 
tions  with  such  fullness  and  firmness  that  the  third  book  is 
a  veritable  treatise  on  the  Church,  and  the  oldest  in  existence." 
As  a  faithful  follower  of  the  Good  Shepherd,  to  whom  every 

1  Cfr.    Dufourcq,    Saint    Irenee;      Church,  202-253;   Tixeront,   H.   D. 
Doellinger,   Hippolytus   and   Callis-      I,    229-240;    D'Ales,    Theologie    de 
tus;  Batiffol,  Primitive  Catholicism,      Saint  Hippolyte. 
164-245 ;  *     Durell,     The     Historic 

138 


ST.  IREN^EUS  AND  ST.  HIPPOLYTUS  139 

stray  sheep  is  dear,  Irenaeus  did  not  aim  at  discomfiting  adver 
saries  of  the  faith  by  holding  up  their  false  teaching  to  ridi 
cule,  but  rather  endeavored  to  open  for  them  the  way  to 
the  truth,  by  presenting  a  clear  exposition  of  the  traditional 
teaching  of  the  Church.  This  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  it 
seems  preferable,  in  our  present  inquiries,  to  study  his  teach 
ing  primarily  in  itself  and  only  incidentally  in  its  relation 
to  Gnosticism.  The  other  reason  is  that  St.  Irenseus  stands 
at  the  parting  of  the  ways.  After  his  time,  Eastern  and 
Western  theological  thought  tended  in  two  divergent  direc 
tions.  Not  that  already  at  this  early  date  the  two  great 
churches  began  to  drift  apart,  owing  to  Eastern  schismatic 
tendencies,  for  of  that  the  first  signs  appeared  only  some  two 
hundred  years  later;  but  circumstances  of  place  and  peculi 
arities  of  national  character  brought  it  about  that  East  and 
West  were  thenceforth  absorbed  in  trying  to  find  solutions 
of  widely  different  problems.  The  one  speculative  and  the 
other  practical,  they  went  each  their  own  way ;  although  these 
ways,  for  all  their  divergence,  were  closely  linked  by  the 
bonds  of  one  and  the  same  faith. 

Iren?eus  was  born  in  Asia  Minor,  sometime  between  130 
and  142,  most  likely  at  or  near  Smyrna.  During  his  boyhood 
he  often  listened  to  St.  Polycarp,  for  whom  he  professed 
great  veneration  in  after  years.  When  arrived  at  man's  estate, 
he  traveled  westward,  tarrying  some  time  in  Rome  and  finally 
taking  up  his  permanent  residence  at  Lyons  in  Gaul.  In  177, 
during  the  persecution  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  he  was  already 
a  priest  and  was  made  the  bearer  of  a  letter  from  the  church 
of  Lyons  to  the  Pope,  concerning  matters  connected  with  the 
Montanist  heresy.  Shortly  after  his  return  he  was  made 
bishop,  succeeding  Ponthinus,  who  had  been  martyred  for 
the  faith. 

It  was  some  years  after  his  elevation  to  the  episcopal  see 
of  Lyons  that  he  took  a  leading  part  in  the  paschal  controversy. 
Pope  Victor  I  (189-198),  according  to  a  statement  of  Euse- 
bius,  threatened  to  excommunicate  certain  Asiatic  bishops, 
who  in  spite  of  his  admonition  persisted  in  celebrating  Easter 
on  the  "  fourteenth  day  of  the  passover  according  to  the  Gos- 


I4o  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

pel/'  instead  of  accommodating  themselves  to  the  Roman  cus 
tom.  Irenseus,  "  in  the  name  of  those  brethren  in  Gaul  over 
whom  he  presided,  wrote  an  epistle,  in  which  he  maintains 
the  duty  of  celebrating  the  mystery  of  the  resurrection  of 
our  Lord  only  on  the  day  of  the  Lord.  He  becomingly  also 
admonishes  Victor  not  to  cut  off  whole  churches  of  God,  who 
observed  the  tradition  of  an  ancient  custom."  "  And  this 
same  Irenseus,  as  one  whose  character  answered  well  to  his 
name,  being  in  this  way  a  peacemaker,  exhorted  and  nego 
tiated  such  matters  as  these  for  the  peace  of  the  churches."  2 

From  other  sources  also  it  appears  that  Irenseus  was  a  holy 
man  and  a  most  zealous  pastor.  He  converted  a  large  num 
ber  of  the  Gallic  Celts  to  Christianity,  and  brought  the  church 
of  Lyons  to  a  very  prosperous  condition.  It  is  commonly 
believed  that  he  died  a  martyr's  death. 

In  non-Catholic  circles  it  is  usually  put  down  as  an  historic 
fact,  that  Irenseus  of  Lyons  was  largely  responsible  for  the 
evolution  of  the  early  Church,  conceived  as  a  communion  of 
brotherly  love,  into  authoritative  Catholicism  as  it  finds  its 
perfect  expression  in  the  Church  of  Rome  to-day.  He  it 
was,  they  say,  who  put  an  end  to  the  Gnostic  and  Montanist 
crisis,  and  must  be  considered  as  "  the  author  of  the  theory  of 
such  victorious  principles  as  the  authority  of  the  rule  of  faith, 
the  authority  of  episcopal  succession,  the  authority  of  the 
confederation  of  bishops."  How  very  unhistorical  this  state 
ment  is,  and  how  absolutely  without  any  foundation  in  fact, 
has  recently  been  exhaustively  shown  by  Mgr.  Batiffol,  in  his 
excellent  work  on  Primitive  Catholicism.  Furthermore,  a 
mere  glance  at  the  preceding  chapters  cannot  fail  to  convince 
the  reader  that  authoritative  Catholicism  is  as  old  as  Chris 
tianity  itself.  The  author  of  the  Didache,  Clement  of  Rome, 
Ignatius  of  Antioch,  did  not  less  firmly  insist  upon  submis 
sion  of  the  faithful  to  their  ecclesiastical  rulers  than  does  the 
bishop  of  Lyons.  The  only  difference  is,  that  circumstances 
forced  Irenseus  to  bring  out  more  clearly,  than  had  been  the 
case  with  his  predecessors,  the  universal  extent  of  this  author- 

2  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  5,  24. 


ST.  IREN^US  AND  ST.  HIPPOLYTUS          141 

ity.  But  even  in  this  he  does  not  follow  his  own  private  no 
tions;  his  constant  appeal  is  to  the  traditions  handed  down 
since  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  facts  of  history  bear 
out  his  appeal. 

In  making  this  appeal,  Irenseus  does  not,  in  the  first  instance, 
have  recourse  to  written  tradition  as  contained  in  Holy  Scrip 
ture  ;  and  he  gives  the  reason.  The  Gnostics,  when  confronted 
with  the  written  word,  either  claim,  though  foolishly,  that 
they  have  a  more  perfect  gospel  of  their  own,  or  else  they 
say  that  Catholics  are  too  simple  to  understand  the  Gospel 
which  they  possess.3  With  such  men  one  cannot  argue,  ex 
cept  by  bringing  before  them  the  witness  of  the  living  Church. 
Incidentally,  however,  Irenaeus  bears  witness  to  the  reverence 
with  which  the  Sacred  Writings,  of  both  the  Old  and  the 
New  Testament,  were  regarded  by  himself  and  his  fellow- 
believers.  They  were  dictated,  he  says,  by  the  Word  of  God 
and  His  Spirit;  and  the  four  Gospels  especially  determine  the 
faith  and  are  the  norm  of  truth.4  His  writings  also  show  that 
the  New  Testament  canon  was  already  fixed  in  his  day. 

As,  then,  the  heretics  cannot  be  convinced  by  an  appeal  to 
Holy  Scripture,  because  they  either  misinterpret  it  or  oppose 
to  it  their  own  apocryphal  gospels,  he  quotes  against  them 
the  Rule  of  Faith,  which  every  Christian  receives  at  baptism, 
and  which  cannot  be  changed,  although  it  can  be  more  or  less 
perfectly  understood  and  explained.5  "  The  Church,"  he  says, 
"  is  indeed  scattered  over  the  whole  world,  extending  even  to 
the  ends  of  the  earth;  but  she  has  received  from  the  Apostles 
and  their  disciples  one  and  the  same  faith,  to  wit:  In  one 
God  the  Father  Almighty,  who  made  heaven  and  earth  and 
the  sea,  and  all  that  is  contained  therein;  and  in  one  Christ 
Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,  who  for  our  salvation  became  flesh; 
and  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  through  the  Prophets  made  known 
God's  economy  of  salvation;  and  in  the  advent  of  the  beloved 
Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,  His  birth  of  the  Virgin,  His  suffer 
ings  and  resurrection,  and  His  return  from  heaven  in  the 
glory  of  the  Father,  to  restore  all  things  and  to  raise  all 

8  Adv.  Haeres.  3,  I ;  I,  20,  I ;  3,  n,          *  Ibid.  2,  28,  2;  3,  i,  i ;  3,  n,  8. 
7;  2,  10,  2.  3.  6  ibid,  i,  9,  4;  10,  3. 


142  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

flesh  from  the  grave,  so  that  before  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord 
and  God  and  Saviour  and  King,  according  to  the  good  will 
of  the  invisible  Father,  every  knee  shall  bend,  of  those  in 
heaven  and  on  earth  and  under  the  earth,  and  every  tongue 
shall  confess  Him;  (He  shall  come)  to  pass  judgment  upon 
all,  condemning  the  spirits  of  wickedness,  the  disobedient  and 
rebellious  angels,  as  also  the  ungodly  and  unjust  and  evil 
doers  and  blasphemers  among  men,  to  everlasting  fire,  and 
rewarding  the  just  and  godly,  who  have  observed  His  com 
mandments,  whether  from  the  beginning  or  since  their  con 
version,  with  life  and  immortality  and  eternal  glory."  6 

This  is  the  faith  into  which  the  children  of  the  Catholic 
Church  are  baptized,  to  this  her  converts  must  subscribe.  In 
substance  it  is  identical  with  the  contents  of  the  Apostolic 
Creed,  although  here  and  there  the  lines  are  somewhat  ex 
tended.  And  who  is  at  the  back  of  this  faith?  Who  pre 
serves  it  and  vouches  for  its  truth?  This  the  author  tells 
us  in  the  following  paragraph.  It  is  the  living  Church,  whose 
very  unity  shows  her  to  be  the  work  of  God. 

"These  glad  tidings,"  he  continues,  "  the  Church  has  re 
ceived,  and  this  faith  she  preserves  with  great  care,  so  that, 
although  scattered  all  over  the  earth,  her  children  seem  to 
dwell  in  one  and  the  same  house:  this  all  believe  with  such 
accord  that  one  would  think  they  had  but  one  heart  and  one 
soul,  and  this  she  preaches  and  teaches  and  hands  down  in 
such  oneness  of  doctrine  as  if  she  had  but  one  mouth.  For 
although  there  are  many  and  diverse  languages  in  the  world, 
nevertheless  the  substance  of .  tradition  is  everywhere  the 
same.  The  churches  in  Germany  do  not  teach  a  different 
doctrine  from  those  in  Spain  or  those  among  the  Celts ;  nor 
is  there  any  difference  of  teaching  in  the  churches  of  the 
Orient,  in  Egypt  and  Lybia,  and  in  those  that  were  founded 
in  the  center  of  the  world:  but  rather  as  the  sun,  which  is 
the  work  of  God,  is  one  and  the  same  in  all  parts  of  the 
universe,  so  likewise  is  the  preaching  of  the  truth,  enlighten 
ing  all  men  who  are  predestined  to  come  to  a  knowledge 
thereof.  And  neither  will  he,  among  ecclesiastical  superiors, 

6  Ibid,  i,  10,  i. 


ST.  IREN^EUS  AND  ST.  HIPPOLYTUS  143 

who  is  powerful  in  speech  say  aught  else  .  .  .  nor  will  he 
who  is  less  gifted  in  preaching  take  aught  away  from  tra 
dition."  7 

Whilst  the  living  Church  is  thus  the  guardian  of  truth,  those 
upon  whom  in  the  Church  this  duty  of  watching  over  the 
purity  of  faith  chiefly  falls,  and  from  whom,  in  consequence, 
the  truth  may  be  fully  ascertained,  are  the  bishops  whose  suc 
cession  is  legitimately  derived  from  the  Apostles.  "  All  who 
have  eyes  to  see,"  he  declares,  "  can  recognize  this  tradition 
in  any  one  of  the  churches,  and  we  can  point  out  the  succes 
sion  of  bishops  from  the  Apostles  to  our  own  day."  8  This 
uninterrupted  succession  of  bishops  in  the  churches  founded 
by  the  Apostles  warrants  the  truth  of  their  teaching;  for 
"  together  with  the  episcopal  succession  they  also  received  the 
unfailing  charism  of  truth."  9  "  However,  as  it  would  be  too 
long  to  enumerate  the  episcopal  lists  of  all  the  churches, 
there  is  one,  very  great,  and  most  ancient  and  known  to  all, 
the  church  founded  and  established  at  Rome  by  two  most 
glorious  Apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  whose  tradition  which  it 
hath  from  the  Apostles,  and  whose  faith  proclaimed  unto  men 
by  a  succession  of  bishops  coming  down  even  unto  us,  we  point 
to,  thereby  confounding  all  those  who  in  any  way  form 
undue  assemblies,  on  account  of  either  self-pleasing  ways,  or 
of  vain  glory,  or  of  blindness  and  wrong  opinion.  For  with 
this  church,  because  of  her  higher  authority,  it  is  necessary 
that  every  church,  that  is,  the  faithful  all  the  world  over, 
should  agree."  10 

Here,  then,  is  the  ultimate  and  all-sufficient  criterion  of 
orthodox  teaching  —  agreement  with  the  church  of  Rome. 
Apostolic  succession  is  indeed  under  ordinary  circumstances  a 
sufficient  warrant  that  the  truth  is  taught  in  any  given  church ; 
but  instead  of  laboriously  inquiring  in  each  instance  whether 
such  succession  can  be  established,  it  suffices  to  ascertain 
whether  that  particular  church  is  in  communion  with  Rome. 
That  mere  fact  decides  the  question  of  orthodoxy.  Does 
this  mean,  therefore,  that  the  text  sets  forth  the  Primacy  of 

7  Ibid,  i,  10,  2.  9  Ibid.  4,  26,  2,  4,  5. 

8  Ibid.  3,  3,  I.  10  Ibid.  3,  3,  2. 


144  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

Rome  in  matters  of  faith?  Such  is  the  contention  of  Catholic 
scholars;  and  although  Protestants  usually  attempt  another 
interpretation,  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  text  is  that  Rome 
holds  a  preeminence  to  which  all  Christianity  must  bow. 
Hence  the  strong  expression :  "  Ad  hanc  Ecclesiam  necesse 
est  omnem  convenire  ecclesiam  " —  it  is  a  matter  of  necessity, 
of  obligation,  that  every  church  resort  to  Rome  in  order  to 
find  the  truth.  Hence,  too,  the  historical  fact,  that  men  in 
terested  in  the  true  faith,  as  Polycarp,  Justin,  Tatian,  Rhodon, 
Abercius,  Irenseus,  Hegesippus,  Tertullian,  Origen,  and  numer 
ous  others,  wended  their  way  Rome-wards;  not  to  speak  of 
heretics  who  also  tried  to  win  Rome  over  to  their  side,  in 
order  to  impress  the  world  with  the  truth  of  their  doctrines. 
Even  Harnack,  speaking  of  Polycarp's  visit  to  Anicetus,  says 
very  significantly :  "  It  was  not  Anicetus  who  came  to  Poly- 
carp,  but  Polycarp  to  Anicetus."  n 

After  thus  pointing  out  the  authoritative  position  of  the 
church  of  Rome,  Irenseus  gives  the  succession  of  bishops, 
from  "  the  Blessed  Apostles,  who  founded  and  builded  the 
church,"  to  Linus,  Anencletus,  Clement,  Evaristus,  Alexan 
der,  Sixtus,  Telesphorus,  Hyginus,  Pius,  Soter,  and  Eleu- 
therius,  then  occupying  the  see.  Under  the  guidance  of  these 
bishops,  "  the  Tradition  which  is  of  the  Apostles  hath  ever 
been  preserved."  The  safeguarding  of  the  truth  in  the 
Church  is,  furthermore,  assured  for  all  times;  because  the 
Church  is  assisted  in  her  teaching  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  It 
is  He  who  renews  her  preaching,  even  as  an  exquisite  deposit 
preserved  in  a  goodly  vessel,  which  keeps  the  vessel  itself 
from  becoming  old.  "  He  is  the  gift  conferred  by  God  on 
His  Church,  just  as  God  imparted  to  Adam,  His  creature,  the 
breath  of  life,  in  order  that  it  might  vivify  his  members." 
Whoso,  then,  does  not  hasten  to  the  Church,  cannot  pos 
sess  the  Spirit  of  God.  "  For  where  the  Church  is, 
there  also  is  the  Spirit  of  God;  and  where  the  Spirit  of 
God  is,  there  is  the  Church  and  all  grace:  but  the  Spirit  is 
truth."  12 

11  Dogmengeschichte,  I,  488.  12  Adv.  Haeres.  3,  2,  i,  2. 


ST.  IREN^EUS  AND  ST.  HIPPOLYTUS          145 

Over  against  this  unity  of  faith  in  the  Church,  and  its  unfail 
ing  transmission  by  a  divinely  constituted  authority  and  the 
guiding  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Irenseus  places  the  end 
less  variations  and  contradictions  of  the  Gnostics.  Among 
them  there  is  no  standard  of  truth,  and  every  one  makes  his 
own  doctrine  for  himself;  they  resemble  the  pagan  schools 
of  philosophy.  They  are  sophists  forever  doomed  to  varia 
tions  of  every  sort,  tossed  about  by  the  waves  of  their  errors, 
having  no  rock  whereon  to  rest  their  edifice:  nothing  but 
moving  sand.  Thus  truth  can  no  longer  be  recognized.  For 
if  to-day  we  must  look  for  it  in  the  system  of  Cerinthus,  to 
morrow  in  that  of  Valentinian,  then  in  that  of  Basilides,  or 
Marcion,  all  of  which  contradict  one  another,  how  shall  we 
know  the  truth  ?  Can  any  one  imagine  a  truth  that  varies  ?  13 

Besides  this  rather  full  and  explicit  teaching  on  the  Church 
and  the  Rule  of  Faith,  which,  however,  has  been  cited  only 
in  part,  St.  Irenaeus  touches  on  nearly  all  points  of  doctrine 
taught  by  the  Church.  Yet  for  brevity's  sake  most  of  this 
may  be  omitted ;  for  as  he  is  very  conservative,  he  rarely  goes 
beyond  his  predecessors  in  the  development  of  any  particular 
doctrine.  Still  the  following  points  ought  to  be  noted : 

i°.  Arguing  against  the  Gnostics,  who  ascribed  the  crea 
tion  of  the  world  to  a  demiurge,  he  insists  that  there  is  only 
one  God,  and  that  this  God  is  Himself  the  creator.  He  is 
the  God  of  both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament,  the  only 
God,  holy,  just,  and  merciful.14 

2°.  In  answer  to  the  Gnostics'  contention  that  the  supreme 
God,  who  is  all-good,  cannot  be  the  author  of  evil,  he  points 
to  the  fact  that  whatever  evil  there  is  in  the  world  has  its 
origin  in  the  abuse  of  man's  freedom,  whence  also  resulted 
the  original  fall.  Of  his  very  nature  man  is  limited  in  per 
fection,  and  he  must  perfect  himself  by  obedience.15  Instead 
of  doing  this,  Adam  disobeyed,  and  in  him  the  whole  race 
was  guilty  of  disobedience.16  Here  we  have  a  rather  clear 
statement  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  we  too  being 
"  debtors  to  Him  whose  commandment  also  we  transgressed 

13  Ibid.  3,  2,  i,  2.  15Ibid.  4,  37,  1-3. 

14  Ibid.  3,  24,  i ;  2,  i,  I,  2.          16  Ibid.  5,  16,  3. 


I46  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

originally."  In  this  connection  the  author  draws  a  rigorous 
parallel  between  Adam  and  Christ;  through  the  one  we  fell 
and  through  the  other  we  were  raised  to  a  new  life.  Else 
where  he  draws  a  similar  parallel  between  Eve  and  Mary, 
referring  to  the  former  as  the  cause  of  our  death  and  to  the 
latter  as  the  source  of  salvation  and  our  advocate.17 

3°.  Although  there  is  only  one  God,  the  Father  of  all, 
still  the  Son  is  also  true  God,  "  God  in  a  definite  and  absolute 
sense  of  the  word."  18  "  By  the  Son,  therefore,  who  is  in  the 
Father,  and  hath  in  Him  the  Father,  He  WHO  is,  is  declared 
to  be  God;  the  Father  bearing  witness  to  the  Son,  and  the 
Son  announcing  the  Father.'*' 19  Besides  the  Father  and  the 
Son  there  is  also  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  eternal,  the  Wisdom 
of  God,  and  His  Image.  He  and  the  Son  took  part  in  the 
creation  of  man,  and  He  dwells  in  our  body  as  in  His  temple.20 

4°.  In  his  Christology  and  soteriology,  both  of  which  are 
rather  fully  developed,  the  author  brings  out  clearly  the  union 
of  the  human  and  the  divine  in  Christ.  Precisely  how  this 
union  is  to  be  explained  he  does  not  know ;  but  of  the  fact  that 
there  is  a  most  intimate  union  he  is  certain.  It  was  the  Word 
of  God,  the  Only-Begotten  of  the  Father,  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  who  saved  us :  the  Incarnate  Word  was  suspended  on 
the  cross.21  His  very  office  of  Redeemer  required  that  He 
should  be  both  God  and  man;  so  that  He  might  mediate  be 
tween  heaven  and  earth,  and  conquer  the  devil  justly.22  He 
was  man  to  be  tempted,  Word  to  be  glorified.23 

5°.  Our  spiritual  regeneration  is  effected  through  baptism; 
therein  we  are  born  again  and  receive  the  Holy  Ghost.24 
Baptism  is  also  administered  to  little  children.25  Christians 
must  share  in  the  fruits  of  the  redemption  through  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ.  This  faith,  however,  is  not  merely  an  assent  of 
the  mind,  but  also  a  fulfillment  of  the  Lord's  precepts.26 

6°.  The  Holy  Eucharist  he  clearly  teaches  to  be  the  body 

17  Ibid.  3,  22,  4;  5,  19,  i.  22  ibid.  3,  18,  7 ;  5,  I,  i. 

is  Ibid.  3,  6,  i,  2.  23  i^d.  3,  19,  2,  3. 

19  Ibid.  3,  6,  2.  24  Ibid,  i,  21,  I ;  3,  17,  2,  3. 

20  Ibid.  5,  12,  2;  4,  7,  4;  4,  20,  i.     25  Ibid.  2,  22,  4. 

21  Ibid.  3,  16,  9;  5,  18,  i.  26  Ibid.  4,  2,  7;  4,  6,  5. 


ST.  IRENyEUS  AND  ST.  HIPPOLYTUS          147 

and  blood  of  the  Saviour,  into  which  the  bread  and  wine  are 
changed  by  the  invocation  of  God.  Having  established  this, 
he  draws  from  it  an  argument  against  the  Gnostics,  refuting 
their  contentions  that  material  creatures  are  evil,  that  God 
cannot  have  made  them,  and  that  the  body  shall  not  rise  again. 
This  argument  presupposes  that  the  Gnostics  also  admitted 
the  Real  Presence.  "  How,"  asks  Irenseus,  "  can  they  be 
certain  that  the  bread  over  which  the  Eucharistic  words  have 
been  spoken  is  the  Lord's  body,  and  the  chalice  is  His  blood,  if 
they  confess  not  that  He  is  the  Son  of  the  Creator,  His  Word, 
through  whom  the  trees  bear  their  fruit,  the  fountains  gush 
forth,  and  the  earth  produces  first  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  and 
then  the  full-grown  wheat  in  the  ear?  How  again  do  they 
say  that  our  bodies  shall  be  dissolved  in  corruption  and  not 
receive  life,  since  they  are  nourished  with  the  body  and  blood 
of  the  Lord?  Therefore  let  them  either  change  their  mind 
or  abstain  from  making  the  aforesaid  oblation."  27  Catholics, 
on  the  other  hand,  are  perfectly  consistent,  believing  as  they 
do  in  the  Real  Presence  and  in  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
"  For  even  as  the  bread,  which  is  of  the  earth,  is  no  longer 
common  bread  after  receiving  the  invocation  of  God,  but  the 
Eucharist,  consisting  of  two  elements,  the  one  earthly  and 
the  other  heavenly ;  so  in  a  similar  manner  our  bodies  receiv 
ing  the  Eucharist  are  no  longer  corruptible,  but  have  the  hope 
of  a  future  resurrection."  28 

Hence  not  only  Catholics,  but  Gnostics  as  well,  firmly  be 
lieved  in  the  Real  Presence,  although  these  latter  distorted  the 
doctrine  to  suit  their  own  peculiar  tenets.  The  same  must  be 
said  about  the  Eucharist  as  a  true  sacrifice,  since  from  this 
aspect,  also  accepted  by  the  Gnostics,  Irenseus  proves  to  them 
that  matter  cannot  be  evil,  because  bread  and  wine,  the  ele 
ments  of  consecration,  are  material  creatures.29  In  connection 
with  this  he  reminds  them  that  the  Eucharist  is  the  clean  obla 
tion  spoken  of  by  the  Prophet  Malachy,  and  that  the  Apostles, 
following  the  Master's  direction,  caused  it  to  be  offered 
throughout  the  world.30 

2TIbid.  4,  18,  4;  cfr.  5,  2,  2.  29  Ibid.  4,  18,  5. 

28  Ibid.  4,  18,  5.  80  Ibid.  4,  17,  5- 


148  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

7°.  Penance  restores  the  truly  repentant  to  peace,  to  the 
friendship  of  God,  and  to  communion.  Incidentally  the  au 
thor  also  refers  to  public  penance  and  to  confession,  but  he 
gives  no  particulars.  The  heretic  Cerdon,  he  says  in  one 
place,  did  public  penance  before  the  Church  during  the  pontifi 
cate  of  Hyginus ; 31  and  in  another  place  he  relates  how  at 
Lyons  in  Gaul  certain  women,  who  had  been  seduced  by  the 
Gnostics,  despaired  of  salvation,  because  they  were  ashamed 
to  confess  their  sins,  whilst  others  who  had  committed  the 
same  sin  did  penance  and  were  restored  to  communion.32 

8°.  The  author's  eschatological  views  are  somewhat  pecu 
liar.  He  holds  that  the  soul  of  Christ  had  to  remain  in  limbo 
until  the  third  day  when  He  rose  from  the  dead,  and  so  must 
also  the  souls  of  the  just  remain  in  an  invisible  place  until 
they  shall  be  reunited  to  their  bodies.33  There  will  be  first  a 
resurrection  of  the  just  alone,  who  are  to  reign  with  Jesus 
Christ  during  a  thousand  years  and  enjoy  all  the  blessings  of 
the  Millennium.34  He  admits  indeed  that  others  do  not  be 
lieve  in  this  doctrine,  but  with  them  he  has  little  patience. 
Then,  after  the  thousand  years  have  come  to  an  end,  the  gen 
eral  resurrection  and  the  judgment  will  take  place.35  The 
punishment  of  the  wicked,  as  well  as  the  reward  of  the  just, 
shall  be  everlasting.36 

Thus  with  the  exception  of  a  few  minor  points,  concerning 
which  he  gives  his  own  personal  views,  the  author's  exposi 
tion  of  Catholic  doctrine  is  most  satisfactory.  His  claim  that 
he  is  guided  by  the  tradition  of  the  Apostles  is  borne  out  by 
almost  every  statement  contained  in  his  great  work.  And  his 
witness  to  this  tradition  is  all  the  more  important  as  he  knew 
from  his  own  personal  experience  what  was  the  teaching  of 
the  different  churches  on  the  points  in  question.  Educated  in 
Asia  Minor,  visiting  Rome  on  several  occasions,  the  chief  pas 
tor  of  Christianity  in  Gaul,  he  came  during  his  life  in  contact 
with  representative  Christians  from  all  over  the  world,  and 
among  them  not  a  few  whose  memories,  like  his  own,  reached 

3i  Ibid.  3,  4.  3-  34  Ibid.  5,  32-35. 

82  Ibid,  i,  6,  3;  i,  13,  7.  35Ibid.  2,  33,  5;  5,  32,  I. 

33  Ibid.  5,  31,  2.  36  Ibid.  4,  28,  2;  5,  36,  2. 


ST.  IREN^US  AND  ST.  HIPPOLYTUS  149 

back  to  the  time  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers.  A  better  witness 
to  Apostolic  tradition  could  hardly  be  found. 

By  way  of  supplement  to  the  teaching  of  St.  Irenseus,  a  few 
remarks  may  here  be  made  about  the  doctrinal  views  of  Hip- 
polytus  of  Rome,  who,  according  to  Photius  (Bibl.  cod.  121), 
was  a  disciple  of  the  bishop  of  Lyons  towards  the  end  of  the 
second  century.  He  was  an  exegete  rather  than  a  theologian, 
still  his  occasional  observations  on  dogmatic  points  are  of 
considerable  value,  especially  as  they  record  the  views  then 
entertained  in  the  capital  city  of  Christendom.  He  was  a 
voluminous  writer,  but  most  of  his  works  have  perished.  Of 
the  eighteen  books  mentioned  by  St.  Jerome,  only  two  are 
complete,  the  treatise  Contra  Noetum  and  the  Philosophumena. 
This  latter,  which  is  a  refutation  of  various  heresies,  was 
for  a  long  time  ascribed  to  some  unknown  author  of  the 
third  century,  but  it  is  now  commonly  admitted  to  be  the 
work  of  Hippolytus.  The  teaching  of  this  disciple  of  Irenseus, 
as  gathered  from  the  above-mentioned  two  works  and  from 
fragments  of  his  other  books,  may  be  briefly  summarized  as 
follows : 

i°.  "  God  is  one,  first  and  alone,  the  Creator  and  Lord  of 
all  things,  without  anything  coeval  with  Himself."  37  "  There 
was  nothing  besides  Himself ;  He  was  alone,  and  yet  He  was 
manifold.  For  He  was  not  without  His  Word,  without  wis 
dom,  without  power,  without  counsel.  All  these  were  in  Him : 
He  Himself  was  all.  When  He  willed,  and  as  He  willed,  He 
manifested  the  Word  at  a  time  determined  by  Himself: 
through  the  Word  He  made  all  things."  38  "  Of  all  beings 
the  Word  alone  was  generated  by  Him."  39  "  His  Word  is 
from  Himself;  therefore  also  God,  since  He  is  the  substance 
of  God."  40 

"  And  thus  there  was  present  with  Him  another  one.  But 
when  I  say  another,  I  do  not  say  two  gods;  but  the  Word 
proceeded  from  Him  as  light  from  light,  as  water  from  a 
fountain,  as  a  ray  from  the  sun.  For  there  is  one  powrer 
which  proceeds  from  the  whole;  but  the  whole  is  the  Father 

37  Philosoph.  10,  32.  39  Philosoph.  10,  33. 

38Cont.  Noet.  10.  40  Ibid. 


1 50  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

and  the  power  proceeding  from  the  whole  is  the  Word."  41 
"  Christ  is  God  over  all  things."  42 

All  this  is  rather  archaic,  as  far  as  the  expressions  go,  but 
the  doctrine  is  perfectly  clear  and  orthodox.  The  author  has 
no  doubt  whatever  about  the  oneness  of  God,  the  true  divinity 
of  the  Word,  and  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Word  with 
the  Father.  However,  he  is  less  satisfactory  when  he  comes 
to  speak  of  the  Word's  divine  sonship,  as  a  few  citations  will 
show. 

2°.  "  What  manner  of  Son  did  God  send  into  the  world 
through  the  Incarnation,  except  His  Word,  whom  He  called 
Son  in  view  of  His  future  birth?  And  when  He  is  called 
Son,  it  is  because  of  His  love  towards  men.  For  the  Word, 
apart  from  the  flesh  and  in  Himself,  was  not  truly  Son,  al 
though  He  was  truly  the  only-begotten  Word."  43  Hence  the 
divine  sonship  of  the  Word  seems  to  depend,  at  least  for  its 
perfection,  on  the  Incarnation.  However,  in  this  there  ap 
pears  to  be  a  question  of  the  name  rather  than  of  the  under 
lying  reality;  for  the  Word  was  born  of  the  Father  before 
the  creation  of  the  world,  and  was  even  then  His  Son. 

3°.  The  Word  Incarnate  is  both  perfect  God  and  perfect 
man.  The  union  between  the  human  and  the  divine  is  so 
intimate  that  without  the  Word  the  human  nature  could  not 
exist.  "  Neither  could  the  flesh  exist  by  itself  and  without 
the  Word ;  for  it  has  its  subsistence  in  the  Word."  44  On  the 
other  hand,  the  human  nature  was  not  merged  into  the  divinity ; 
for  "  we  must  believe  that  God  the  Word  descended  from 
heaven  into  the  holy  Virgin  Mary,  so  that  He  might  become 
Incarnate  in  her,  taking  a  rational  soul  and  being  made  in  all 
things  like  unto  us,  sin  alone  excepted."  45  Even  as  man  He 
"  is  one  Son  of  God,"  yet  at  the  same  time  both  God  and  man. 
Hence  the  unity  of  person  and  the  distinction  of  the  two  na 
tures  in  Christ  is  clearly  maintained  by  the  author. 

4°.  The  personal  distinction  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  hardly 
touched  upon  by  Hippolytus;  but  this  is  easily  explained,  as 

41  Cont.  Noet.  n.  44  Ibid. 

42  Philosoph.  10,  34.  45  Ibid.  17. 

43  Cont.  Noet.  15. 


ST.  IREN^US  AND  ST.  HIPPOLYTUS          151 

the  works  that  have  come  down  to  us  are  almost  entirely  con 
troversial,  and  the  controversy  was  not  about  the  Holy  Ghost 
but  about  the  Son.  Incidentally,  however,  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
represented  as  one  of  the  Trinity,  being  associated  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son  in  the  same  Godhead.46 

5°.  "  God  the  Word  became  man  that  He  might  save  him 
who  had  fallen,  and  bestow  immortality  upon  all  those  who 
would  believe  in  His  name."  47  The  Incarnate  Word  is  the 
new  man,  in  whom  the  old  Adam  is  restored  to  newness  of 
life.48  By  His  sufferings  and  death  He  paid  our  ransom  and 
merited  for  us  a  title  to  incorruptibility  and  glory.49 

6°.  Of  the  Church  the  author  speaks  only  in  passing,  but 
he  bears  witness  to  the  fact  that  she  was  then  called  Catholic 
in  opposition  to  heretical  sects.  She  is  the  gathering  of  the 
saints,  the  assemblage  of  the  faithful  who  live  in  justice.  To 
be  a  true  member  thereof  one  must  have  practical  faith,  which 
shows  itself  in  the  observance  of  God's  commandments.50 

7°.  Entrance  into  the  Church  is  through  baptism,  which 
effects  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  a  spiritual  regeneration.51 
The  newly  baptized  are  confirmed,  and  thus  receive  the  Holy 
Spirit.52  The  faithful  are  nourished  with  the  flesh  and  blood 
of  the  Saviour,  which  is  offered  in  every  place  and  among  all 
nations  as  the  great  sacrifice  of  the  New  Law.53  To  the 
Church  has  been  entrusted  the  power  of  forgiving  sins  com 
mitted  after  baptism,  but  there  are  some  grievous  offenses 
which  she  should  not  pardon.54  It  was  on  account  of  this 
rigorism  that  the  author  was  so  bitterly  opposed  to  Pope  Cal- 
listus,  on  which  point  something  will  be  said  in  another  chap 
ter.  Holy  orders  are  also  referred  to,  and  the  observance 
of  celibacy  on  the  part  of  the  clergy  is  strongly  insisted  on. 

8°.  God  created  the  world  out  of  nothing,  and  all  that  He 
made  was  good.  Man  was  created  immortal,  but  after  the 
primal  transgression,  and  because  of  it,  death  and  corruption 
are  the  common  lot  of  all.55  However,  there  will  be  a  resur- 

46  Ibid.  8,  14;  8.  i2.  5,1  ibid,  i,  16,  2,  2. 

47  Ibid.  17.  52  Ibid>  If  l6j  3> 

48  De  Christo  et  Antichristo,  26.          53  In  Gen.  49,  20 ;  38,  19. 

49  Cont.  Noet.  17,  18.  5*  Philosoph.  9,   12. 

50  In  Dan.  i,  17,  5-14.  55  j^d.  10,  33 ;  In  Gen.  38,  19. 


1 52  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

rection  of  the  dead,  when  each  soul  shall  be  reunited  to  her 
own  body.  The  bodies  of  the  just  shall  be  changed  so  as 
to  be  a  source  of  happiness  to  the  soul,  whereas  those  of  the 
wicked  shall  ever  remain  subject  to  all  the  infirmities  of  this 
life.  After  the  resurrection  comes  the  judgment,  over  which 
the  Incarnate  Word  of  God  will  preside.  All  the  world,  an 
gels,  men,  and  demons,  will  acclaim  the  judgment  to  be  just. 
Then  every  one  shall  receive  the  reward  of  his  deeds.  Those 
who  have  led  good  lives  shall  be  recompensed  with  eternal 
happiness,  whilst  evil-doers  shall  be  condemned  to  everlasting 
punishment.  This  punishment  of  the  wicked  consists  in  tor 
tures  of  both  soul  and  body.  The  end  of  the  world  is  near 
at  hand.56 

Gathering  up  what  has  been  said  in  three  of  the  foregoing 
chapters  —  that  on  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  on  the  Apologists, 
and  on  St.  Irenaeus  and  St.  Hippolytus —  we  have  a  fairly 
complete  view  of  Christian  teaching  during  the  second  cen 
tury.  Nearly  every  point  of  doctrine  is  touched  upon,  and 
some  of  the  more  fundamental  articles  of  our  holy  faith  are 
stated  with  great  clearness.  Of  doctrinal  development,  how 
ever,  there  occur  as  yet  only  a  few  noticeable  traces.  They 
are  mostly  found  in  matters  connected  with  ecclesiology,  the 
relation  of  the  Word  to  the  Father,  the  unity  of  person  and 
duality  of  nature  in  the  God-Man,  the  real  presence  of  Christ's 
body  and  blood  in  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  and  the  sacrificial 
character  of  the  Eucharistic  rite.  As  a  general  rule  no  the 
ories  are  advanced,  but  the  facts  of  faith  are  definitely  stated. 
It  is  these  facts  that  form  the  foundation  of  latter  theories, 
which  in  their  turn  lead  to  a  fuller  exposition  of  the  very 
same  facts,  and  thereby  advance  the  development  of  dogmas. 

66  Adv.  Graecos,  253;  Philosoph.  10,  9,  34;  10,  34;  In  Proverb,  u,  30. 


CHAPTER  IX 

MONARCHIAN    ABERRATIONS    AND    MONTANISTIC 
EXCESSES  i 

Gnostic  speculations  not  only  stimulated  literary  activity 
among  orthodox  Christians  in  defense  of  the  faith,  but  they 
made  so  profound  and  disturbing  an  impression  on  certain 
anxious  souls  that  a  reaction  set  in  which  led  to  opposite  ex 
tremes.  The  fundamental  doctrine  of  Gnosticism  logically 
implied  a  division  of  the  Godhead,  defending  as  it  did  a 
pleroma  of  divine  beings,  all  indeed  subordinated  to  the 
Father-God,  yet  directly  or  indirectly  emanating  from  him  by 
some  sort  of  generation,  and  therefore  of  necessity  sharing 
his  nature,  although  not  by  way  of  identity.  It  was  these 
inferior  divinities  that  were,  according  to  Gnostic  specula 
tions,  concerned  with  the  visible  world,  whilst  the  supreme 
God  stood  aloof  in  majestic  isolation.  All  this  was  so  foreign 
to  Christian  consciousness,  and  appeared  so  radically  opposed 
to  the  faith  handed  down  by  the  Apostles,  that  many  thought 
it  necessary  to  place  exclusive  emphasis  on  the  "  sole  and 
independent  and  absolute  existence  and  being  and  rule  of 
God/'  This  concept  of  one  God  and  one  divine  economy,  in 
contradistinction  to  the  Gnostic  pleroma  and  its  fatuous  rela 
tion  to  the  visible  world,  formed  the  root  idea  of  a  movement  of 
thought  usually  designated  as  Monarchianism.  The  following 
is  a  brief  outline  of  its  genesis  and  teaching,  to  which  may  be 
added  a  few  words  about  the  rise  and  excesses  of  Montanism. 

A  —  ADOPTIANISM  AND  MODALISM 

In  its  original  intent  and  purpose,  therefore,  Monarchianism 
was  neither  more  nor  less  than  an  orthodox  reaction  against 

1  Cfr.  Tixeront,  H.  D.  I,  287-298 ;  chesne,  The  Early  History  of  the 
Schwane,  H.  D.  I,  148-161;  *  Beth-  Church,  I,  212-237;  Bardenhewer, 
une-Baker,  Op.  cit.  96-113;  Du-  Altkirch.  Litt.  II,  496-555. 

153 


THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

the  unbridled  license  of  Gnostic  speculations.  But  before  long 
it  took  a  different  turn  and  advanced  views  that  were  plainly 
out  of  harmony  with  the  traditional  teaching  of  the  Church. 
Orthodox  Christianity  insisted  indeed  upon  the  unity  of  God 
and  upon  a  strictly  divine  government  of  the  world,  but  it 
insisted  also  upon  the  true  divinity  of  the  Son  and  upon  His 
share  in  the  "  rule  of  God."  These  two  beliefs  must  be  recon 
ciled,  yet  so  as  not  to  alter  the  traditions  that  had  come  down 
from  the  Apostolic  past.  This  Monarchianism  failed  to  do, 
and  hence  its  final  defection  from  the  faith. 

Thus  it  was  the  true  divinity  of  the  Son  that  proved  a 
stumbling-block  to  the  defenders  of  the  Monarchy,  although 
not  in  the  same  way  to  all.  At  an  early  date  two  parties  were 
formed,  each  one  offering  its  own  solution  of  the  problem. 
The  one  reduced  the  divinity  of  Christ  to  a  mere  power  be 
stowed  on  Him  by  God,  by  the  right  use  of  which  He  acquired 
divinity  in  a  relative  and  moral  sense ;  whilst  the  other,  main 
taining  that  Jesus  was  truly  God,  merged  His  divinity  so 
completely  into  that  of  the  Father  as  to  deny  that  the  Son 
was  a  distinct  person.  The  chief  representatives  of  the  former 
class  were  Theodotus,  Artemon,  and  Paul  of  Samosata;  of 
the  latter,  Praxeas,  Noetus,  and  Sabellius.  The  former  are 
also  known  to  history  as  Adoptionists  and  Dynamic  Mon- 
archians,  whilst  the  latter  are  called  Medalists,  Patripassian- 
ists,  and  Sabellians. 

i°.  Dynamic  Monarchianism  is  usually  traced  back  to  Theo 
dotus,  a  currier  of  Byzantium,  who,  during  the  last  decade 
of  the  second  century,  came  to  Rome  and  was  excommunicated 
by  Pope  Victor.  He  seems,  however,  to  have  been  impelled 
by  the  desire  to  save  his  own  reputation  rather  than  by  zeal 
for  the  unity  of  God.  Accused  of  having  denied  Christ  dur 
ing  the  late  persecution,  he  admitted  the  fact  but  pleaded  as 
an  excuse  that  thereby  he  had  not  denied  God,  since  Christ 
was  only  man.  When  he  was  called  to  account  for  this  state 
ment,  he  persisted  in  his  assertion  that  Jesus  was  merely 
human,  an  ordinary  man  born  of  a  virgin,  to  whom  the  power 
of  God  was  communicated  in  a  singular  manner.  This  led 
to  his  excommunication,  and  thereupon  he  founded  a  sect  of 


MONARCHIAN  HERESIES  155 

his  own.  His  immediate  followers,  however,  seem  to  have 
taken  little  interest  in  religious  discussions.  They  were  for 
the  most  part  literary  men,  who  preferred  to  busy  themselves 
with  the  study  of  ancient  authors  and  the  grammatical  ex 
egesis  of  Holy  Scripture.  The  best  known  of  them  is  another 
Theodotus,  called  the  banker,  who  placed  Melchisedech  above 
Jesus  and  thus  gave  rise  to  the  sect  of  Melchisedechians. 

Somewhat  later  a  certain  Artemon  or  Artemas,  a  Syrian  by 
birth,  tried  to  prove  these  new  views  by  an  appeal  to  Scrip 
ture  and  tradition,  but  his  arguments  were  thoroughly  refuted 
by  the  unknown  author  of  the  Little  Labyrinth,  who  had  no 
difficulty  in  showing  that  Christ  had  from  the  very  first  been 
regarded  and  worshiped  as  true  God.  After  this  the  sect 
began  to  dwindle  away,  although  remnants  of  it  were  still 
found  at  the  time  of  St.  Augustine.  In  Syria,  however,  it 
experienced  a  brief  revival  shortly  after  the  middle  of  the 
third  century,  through  the  efforts  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  bishop 
of  Antioch  and  chancellor  of  Queen  Zenobia.  He  contended 
that  the  Logos  was  indeed  homoousios  or  consubstantial  with 
the  Father  but  only  modally  distinct,  and  that  He  dwelt  in 
Jesus  not  essentially  or  personally,  but  merely  as  an  attribute 
or  quality.  Hence  in  Paul's  view  the  unity  of  God  implies 
oneness  of  person  as  well  as  of  nature;  the  Word  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  being  simply  impersonal  attributes  of  the  Godhead. 
He  was  condemned  by  three  successive  provincial  synods  and 
finally  deposed  through  the  intervention  of  the  Emperor 
Aurelian,  who,  though  a  pagan,  decided  that  the  episcopal 
dignity  and  jurisdiction  ought  to  be  given  to  a  person  in  com 
munion  with  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 

2°.  Modalistic  Monarchianism  started  out  with  a  fairer 
promise  of  success.  For  not  only  did  it  uphold  the  unity  of 
God,  but  also  the  true  divinity  of  Christ.  It  did  this  indeed 
by  removing  the  real  distinction  between  the  persons  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  but  this  heterodox  proceeding  was  not  so 
apparent  to  the  unsuspecting  faithful.  In  reference  to  the 
divine  persons  the  doctrine  was  identical  with  that  of  Paul 
of  Samosata,  but  as  its  defenders  insisted  that  Christ  was 
truly  divine,  its  heretical  element  was  not  easily  recognized. 


I56  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

Hence  for  some  time  this  new  heresy  escaped  even  the  vigilance 
of  Pope  Zephyrinus;  but  under  his  successor,  Callistus,  its 
true  nature  was  discovered,  and  its  abettors  were  promptly 
excommunicated. 

Tertullian  connects  the  origin  of  this  sect  with  a  certain 
Praxeas,  of  whom  nothing  further  is  known  than  that  he 
lodged  a  complaint  against  the  Montanists  at  Rome,  and  then 
passed  over  into  Africa,  where  he  propagated  his  Modalistic 
views.  He  was  convicted  of  heresy  by  Tertullian  and  made 
to  sign  a  retractation.  Hippolytus,  on  the  other  hand,  states 
that  Modalism  was  first  taught  by  Noetus  of  Smyrna  in  Asia 
Minor,  who  was  excommunicated  by  the  presbyterium  of  that 
city.  At  all  events,  both  were  active  in  spreading  the  same 
error,  Praxeas  in  Africa  and  Noetus  in  Asia  Minor. 

A  somewhat  modified  form  of  Modalism  was  brought  to 
Rome  by  Epigonus,  early  in  the  third  century.  There  it  found 
an  ardent  propagandist  in  the  person  of  Cleomenes,  and  a 
little  later  in  that  of  Sabellius.  From  this  latter  the  heresy 
received  the  name  of  Sabellianism,  by  which  it  was  known  in 
the  East;  whilst  in  the  West  it  was  commonly  called  Patri- 
passianism,  in  allusion  to  the  fundamental  doctrine  advanced 
by  these  Medalists.  According  to  them  it  was  the  Father 
Himself,  under  the  name  of  Son,  who  became  incarnate  in 
Jesus  and  suffered  for  the  salvation  of  the  world.  As  strict 
Monarchists  they  admitted  a  trinity  of  manifestations,  but  not 
a  trinity  of  persons.  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  they 
said,  are  simply  designations  of  three  different  phases  under 
which  the  one  divine  essence  reveals  itself ;  three  distinct  names 
of  one  identical  nature  and  person.  Sabellius  indeed,  when 
occasion  required,  would  speak  of  three  divine  persons,  but 
only  in  the  original  sense  of  the  word,  signifying  a  role  of 
acting  or  mode  of  manifestation.  Patripassianism  survived 
till  the  fifth  century,  and  played  a  considerable  part  in  the 
theological  discussions  that  followed  the  Council  of  Nicsea. 

B  —  MONTANISTIC  EXCESSES 

Montanism  was  in  no  sense  an  Antignostic  reaction,  but  it 
appears  preferable  to  call  attention  to  it  in  this  place  on  account 


MONTANISTIC  ABERRATIONS  157 

of  the  baleful  influence  it  exerted  over  Tertullian,  of  whom 
we  must  speak  in  the  next  chapter.  In  its  beginnings  the 
Montanistic  movement  did  little  more  than  overemphasize  the 
influence  which  was  traditionally  attributed  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
in  reference  to  the  special  illumination  of  certain  chosen  in 
dividuals  among  the  faithful.  The  gift  of  prophecy  played 
a  rather  prominent  part  in  the  early  Church,  and  authentic 
instances  of  this  gift  reached  well  up  into  the  second  century. 
Hence  when  Montanus,  a  Phrygian  convert,  began  to  attract 
attention  by  ecstasies  and  transports  in  which  he  uttered 
strange  sayings,  it  was  not  at  all  surprising  that  he  should 
pass  for  a  prophet.  And  when  two  women,  Prisca  and 
Maximilla,  developed  the  same  symptoms,  they  were  readily 
accepted  as  prophetesses.  And  so  the  movement  was  started, 
probably  about  170. 

In  their  first  message  from  the  Paraclete  they  announced 
that  the  Saviour  would  speedily  return,  and  that  the  "  Vision  of 
the  Heavenly  Jerusalem  "  would  soon  appear  on  earth,  at  a  spot 
which  they  indicated.  The  result,  of  course,  was  immediate 
and  wide-spread  social  disorder.  Earthly  interests  were  en 
tirely  set  aside,  and  people  devoted  themselves  exclusively  to 
the  practice  of  asceticism,  so  as  to  be  prepared  for  the  expected 
advent  of  the  great  day.  Thus  started,  the  movement  spread 
rapidly  and  sowed  discord  on  all  sides.  At  first  the  authori 
ties  of  the  Church  adopted  a  waiting  policy,  hoping  that  the 
excitement  would  gradually  spend  itself;  but  when  matters 
were  going  from  bad  to  worse,  a  number  of  synods  were 
held  in  Asia  Minor,  and  finally  the  followers  of  the  new 
prophet  were  excommunicated.  At  the  same  time  several  emi 
nent  writers,  among  them  Apollinaris  of  Hierapolis  and  Sera- 
pion  of  Antioch,  refuted  the  claims  of  these  pretenders.  But 
neither  ecclesiastical  censures  nor  polemical  attacks  had  any 
appreciable  effect  towards  checking  the  movement. 

From  Asia  the  followers  of  the  prophet  carried  his  mes 
sage  into  Gaul,  Italy,  and  Africa.  In  this  latter  country  their 
most  distinguished  convert  was  Tertullian,  a  priest  of  Car 
thage,  who  since  his  conversion  to  Christianity,  some  fifteen 
years  before,  had  done  yeoman's  service  in  the  cause  of  faith. 


158  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

His  acceptance  of  the  Montanists'  pretensions  meant  a  break 
with  the  Church,  but  his  passionate  nature  did  not  shrink 
from  so  momentous  a  step.  To  his  mind  the  movement  did 
not  endanger  the  faith,  but  rather  confirm  it ;  and  so  he  threw 
all  other  considerations  to  the  winds.  Its  asceticism  especially 
had  great  attraction  for  him,  and  so  had  also  certain  rigoris- 
tic  views  regarding  marriage  and  other  points  of  doctrine. 
The  Montanists  of  Africa  chose  him  as  their  head,  and  even 
called  themselves  Tertullianists  in  his  honor.  However,  in 
the  West  the  movement  did  not  prove  very  successful,  whilst  in 
the  East  it  continued  to  make  considerable  stir  till  the  fifth 
century.  After  that  time  it  gradually  disappeared. 

As  a  doctrinal  movement  Montanism  amounted  to  very 
little.  Its  Millennarian  views  were,  in  substance,  shared  by 
some  orthodox  Christians,  among  them  men  of  eminence,  like 
St.  Justin  and  St.  Irenaeus.  In  asceticism  it  went  somewhat 
to  extremes,  but  its  worst  features  resulted  from  doctrinal 
rigorism,  especially  touching  remarriage  and  the  forgiveness 
of  certain  sins.  To  these  must  be  added  its  decided  opposi 
tion  to  Church  authority.  It  was  principally  these  points  that 
proved  the  undoing  of  Tertullian. 

By  way  of  reaction  against  Montanism  another  sect  sprang 
up  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century,  whose  members 
are  known  as  the  Alogi.  They  rejected  the  Gospel  and  Apo 
calypse  of  St.  John,  presumably  because  in  them  the  doctrine 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  holds  a  prominent  place.  In  consequence 
they  also  rejected  the  Logos  doctrine,  and  on  account  of  this 
their  adversaries,  by  a  play  on  words,  called  them  Alogi,  that 
is,  men  without  reason.  It  is  usually  held  that  they  were  the 
forerunners  of  Monarchianism,  but  little  is  known  of  their 
history. 


CHAPTER  X 

SOME  WESTERN  THEOLOGIANS  AND  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF 
LATIN  THEOLOGY1 

St.  Irenseus,  though  belonging  to  the  East  by  birth  and 
training,  may  nevertheless  be  said  to  have  laid  the  foundation 
of  Western  theology.  Conservative  and  practical,  tenaciously 
clinging  to  the  traditions  of  the  past  and  yet  solicitously  atten 
tive  to  the  needs  of  the  present,  he  exerted  in  far-away  Gaul 
an  influence  that  was  felt  in  all  Western  lands,  and  impressed 
upon  Latin  theological  thought  and  tendencies  a  sane  con 
servatism  which  formed  its  most  striking  characteristic  for 
many  centuries.  And  yet  in  the  initial  efforts  of  building  on 
this  solid  foundation,  two  men  were  chiefly  concerned  who 
both  fell  away  from  the  Church;  but  it  must  be  noted  that 
their  aberrations  were  to  a  great  extent  the  outcome  of  their 
personal  predispositions.  These  two  men  were  Tertullian  and 
Novatian.  Both  of  them  were  gifted  with  more  than  ordi 
nary  intellectual  powers,  but  unfortunately  neither  had  that 
self-control,  disinterestedness,  and  well  balanced  judgment, 
which  are  the  first  requisites  in  solving  practical  theological 
problems.  Hence  at  the  critical  moment,  when  they  should 
have  set  their  personal  views  entirely  aside,  they  were  found 
wanting. 

With  these  two  may  be  associated  a  third  writer  of  the 
same  period,  although  he  was  more  distinguished  for  his  pas 
toral  zeal  than  for  his  theological  ability.  This  is  Cyprian,  the 
saintly  bishop  of  Carthage.  He  professed  to  be  a  disciple  of 
Tertullian,  and  in  many  instances  he  did  little  more  than  give 

1  Cfr.    D'Ales,    La   Theologie    de      Batiffol,  Primitive  Catholicism,  264- 
Tertullien;       Leclercq,      L'Afrique      281;    332-402;    Tixeront,   H.   D.   I, 
Chretienne,    I;    Bardenhewer,    Alt-      298-366. 
kirch.    Lit.    II,    332-394;    394-464 ; 

159 


160  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

to  his  master's  speculations  a  practical  turn.  The  works  of 
these  men  represent  in  some  way  the  beginning  of  Latin  the 
ology,  differing  from  previous  productions  along  theological 
lines  both  in  language  and  in  thought.  Only  a  brief  outline 
can  here  be  given,  but  it  will  be  sufficient  for  our  purpose. 

A  —  TERTULLIAN:  His  TRINITARIAN  AND 
CHRISTOLOGICAL  TEACHING 

Quintus  Septimius  Florens  Tertullianus  was  the  son  of  a 
Roman  centurion,  resident  at  Carthage  in  Africa.  In  his 
early  years  he  received  a  thorough  training  in  Latin  and  Greek 
literature.  Later  on  he  took  up  the  practice  of  law,  and  in 
a  short  time  became  a  distinguished  man.  However,  like  the 
majority  of  educated  pagans,  he  was  steeped  in  worldliness 
and  appears  to  have  led  a  rather  licentious  life.  Struck  by  the 
constancy  with  which  Christians  endured  torture  and  death 
for  their  faith,  he  began  to  inquire  into  the  claims  of  Chris 
tianity,  and  about  196  was  received  into  the  Church.  A  few 
years  later  he  was  admitted  to  the  presbyterium  at  Carthage, 
where  he  gained  universal  respect  as  a  fervent  priest.  His 
greatest  failings  were  his  violent  temper  and  a  decided  leaning 
towards  excessive  rigorism.  It  was  on  account  of  this  latter 
disposition  that  after  some  years  he  felt  himself  growing  out 
of  harmony  with  the  Catholic  spirit.  Hence  when  in  207  the 
Montanists  became  very  active  at  Carthage,  he  began  to  look 
for  a  realization  of  his  ascetic  ideals  in  their  ranks.  Still  it 
was  not  until  213  that  he  definitely  broke  with  the  Church 
and  became  a  full-fledged  Montanist.  He  lived  to  a  decrepit 
old  age,  but,  as  far  as  is  known,  he  never  renounced  his  error. 

During  more  than  twenty  years,  from  197  to  220,  Tertul- 
lian  was  constantly  writing  against  all  manner  of  adversaries, 
and  most  of  his  works  have  come  down  to  us,  though  not 
always  in  well  preserved  form.  They  are  of  very  unequal 
value,  and  even  the  best  of  them  must  be  read  with  discrimi 
nation.  The  chief  reason  is  that  they  are  nearly  all  polemical, 
and  in  the  heat  of  combat  Tertullian  thought  more  of  crushing 
his  adversary  than  of  setting  forth  the  exact  truth. 

According   to    Harnack,    Tertullian   was    the    founder   of 


TERTULLIAN'S  THEOLOGY  161 

Western  Christianity  in  its  present  form  and  the  father  of 
orthodox  Trinitarian  and  Christological  belief;  an  assertion, 
remarks  Bardenhewer,  that  goes  far  beyond  the  worst  exag 
geration  of  which  Tertullian  himself,  even  in  his  wildest 
moods,  was  ever  found  guilty.2  The  fact  is  that  Tertullian 
did  little  more  than  clear  up  hazy  concepts  and  forge  a  new 
theological  language.  He  did  not  add  to  the  contents  of  Chris 
tian  teaching  as  it  existed  before  his  time,  nor  did  he  divert 
theological  thought  from  its  accustomed  trend ;  but  he  gathered 
up  many  a  vague  idea  thus  far  imperfectly  conceived,  pointed 
out  with  legal  accuracy  its  true  significance,  and  coined  the 
precise  term  that  would  best  convey  its  meaning  to  others. 
He  did  not  create  a  new  theology,  but  a  new  theological  lan 
guage.  Till  his  time  the  only  theological  language  of  the 
West  as  well  as  the  East  was  Greek.  Even  Hippolytus,  though 
a  Roman,  employed  the  Greek  language  exclusively  in  the 
composition  of  his  many  works.  It  may  indeed  be  said  that 
Tertullian's  theology  differed  also  in  thought  from  that  of 
his  predecessors,  but  this  difference  is  in  the  form  only,  not 
in  the  contents.  Thus  he  was  truly  a  pioneer,  the  founder 
of  Western  theology;  but  not  in  the  sense  claimed  by  Harnack. 
He  created  the  outward  form  of  theology  as  distinct  from 
Christian  doctrine,  and  provided  the  proper  terms  for  the  exact 
expression  of  theological  thought,  but  the  spirit  that  gave  it 
life  flowed  from  the  fountain  of  Apostolic  preaching. 

And  this  he  himself  insisted  on  from  the  moment  he  took 
up  his  pen  in  defense  of  the  faith  until  it  fell  from  his  palsied 
hand  after  his  defection  from  the  Church.  In  one  sense  it 
may  be  said  that  it  was  precisely  his  theological  conservatism 
that  finally  led  him  astray.  His  was  too  rigid  a  character  to 
bend  to  the  exigencies  of  the  times,  even  where  it  could  be 
done  without  sacrifice  of  principle  or  truth.  In  all  his  writ 
ings  he  appeals  to  the  traditions  of  the  past.  "  No  one,"  he 
says  in  the  De  Prcescriptione,  "  knows  the  Father  except  the 
Son,  and  he  to  whom  the  Son  has  revealed  Him;  and  to  no 
others  did  the  Son  reveal  Him  except  to  the  Apostles  whom 
He  sent  out  to  preach  what  He  had  revealed.  Now  what 

2  Altkirch.  Litt.  II,  340. 


1 62  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

they  preached,  that  is,  what  Christ  revealed  to  them,  ought  to 
be  ascertained  from  the  churches  which  they  founded." 3 
From  the  teaching  of  the  mother-churches  there  is  no  appeal, 
even  to  the  Scriptures ;  for  the  Scriptures  belong  not  to  here 
tics,  but  to  the  Church :  she  is  their  guardian  and  interpreter. 
This  is  the  law  of  prescription  which  closes  all  further  appeal. 

For  practical  purposes  the  teaching  of  the  Church  is  summed 
up  in  the  Symbol,  the  Lex  Fidel,  as  the  author  calls  it  in  his 
legal  phraseology.  This  Symbol,  unlike  matters  that  are 
merely  of  discipline  and  custom,  cannot  be  touched;  a  view 
evidently  borrowed  from  Irenasus.  Even  as  a  Montanist  he 
clung  to  this  principle.  Only  what  lies  outside  the  Symbol 
and  at  the  same  time  is  not  clearly  contained  in  the  teaching  of 
the  Church,  may  be  made  a  matter  of  investigation.4  The 
Symbol  of  the  African  Church  has  been  received  from  the 
mother-church  at  Rome;  the  latter,  therefore,  is  the  foun 
tain  of  truth.5  In  all  this  there  is  evidently  no  attempt  to 
strike  out  into  new  directions;  the  author  closely  follows  the 
lines  traced  out  by  Irenseus,  Justin,  and  the  Fathers  of  the  sub- 
Apostolic  age. 

With  this  ascertained,  we  may  now  examine  a  few  points 
of  doctrine,  in  which  we  shall  indeed  find  new  modes  of 
presentation,  but  nothing  new  by  way  of  contents. 

i°.  God  is  strictly  one,  yet  in  such  wise  that  in  the  one  God 
there  are  three  divine  persons,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
who  are  distinct  in  their  personality  but  identical  in  substance.6 
This  oneness  of  the  Godhead  admits  of  a  certain  oikonomia, 
a  distribution  of  the  unity  into  the  Trinity,  which  does  not 
destroy  but  organize  the  Monarchy.7  The  result  of  this  dis 
tribution  of  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  is  the  trinity  of  persons, 
through  a  communication  of  the  same  nature,  the  same  sub 
stance,  and  the  same  power  to  each.  "  The  Father  is  God, 
the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  God,  each  of  the  three 
is  God."  8  Though  one,  they  are  three;  they  are  not  "  unus  " 

3  Op.  cit.  21 ;  cfr.  19.  6  Adv.  Prax.  2;  4;  8. 

4De  Praescript.  13;  14;  De  Vir-          7  Ibid.  2. 
gin.  Veland.  I.  8  Ibid.  13. 

6  De  Praescript.  21. 


TERTULLIAN'S  THEOLOGY  163 

but  "  unum,"  not  one  person  but  one  nature ;  "  tres  personse, 
una  substantia,"  three  persons,  one  substance ;  "  trinitas  unius 
divinitatis,  Pater  et  Filius  et  Spiritus  Sanctus,"  a  trinity  of  one 
divinity,  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost.9 

These  expressions,  "  one  substance,  one  state,  three  persons, 
a  trinity  of  one  divinity,"  are  new  theological  terms;  they 
are  coined  by  one  who  has  apparently  a  clear  concept  of  what 
he  believes  and  a  thorough  grasp  on  the  genius  of  the  language 
he  uses ;  but  there  is  absolutely  nothing  new  in  the  ideas  which 
they  convey.  The  first  three,  it  is  sometimes  contended,  were 
borrowed  from  the  legal  language  of  the  day  and  made  to  fit 
floating  concepts  of  the  faith;  but  if  so,  they  acquired  in  this 
transference  from  one  sphere  of  thought  to  another  a  new 
significance.  They  did  not  determine  the  author's  thought, 
but  the  author's  thought  determined  their  meaning  in  the  new 
usage  which  he  thus  inaugurated.  And  in  this  new  usage  he 
enshrined  the  faith  as  preached  by  the  Apostles.  For,  after  all 
his  dexterous  efforts  to  set  forth  in  apt  definition  the  teaching 
of  the  Church  on  the  Trinity,  after  all  the  various  turns  of 
speech  he  employs  to  mark  plurality  of  persons  and  identity 
of  substance  or  nature,  he  falls  back  for  the  doctrine  itself  upon 
the  words  of  the  Saviour  recorded  in  St.  John,  "  Ego  et  Pater 
unum  sumus."  This  contains  the  sum  and  substance,  the  very 
essence  of  his  teaching.  "  Non  unus  sed  unum,"  not  identity 
of  person  but  identity  of  nature.  The  new  theological  termi 
nology  which  he  thus  originated  became  a  precious  heirloom 
for  subsequent  ages,  but  only  in  so  far  as  it  enshrined  the  more 
precious  heritage  of  Apostolic  preaching. 

It  must,  however,  be  observed  that  whilst  the  author's  termi 
nology  is  almost  Nicene  in  its  exactness,  and  whilst  in  his  mere 
statement  of  the  Trinitarian  doctrine  he  rivals  the  great 
Fathers  of  the  fourth  century,  he  is  far  from  being  satisfac 
tory  when  he  enters  upon  detailed  explanations  of  his  views. 
Even  if  Harnack's  inference  that  Tertullian  was  in  reality  a 
Tritheist 10  goes  somewhat  beyond  the  premises,  neverthe 
less  there  is  found  in  his  writings  a  large  number  of  texts 

9  Ibid.  22;  De  Pudic.  21.  10  Dogmengeschichte,  I,  575  sqq. 


1 64  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

that  seem  to  point  in  this  direction.  Thus  when  he  states 
that  the  three  divine  persons  do  not  differ  in  nature,  in  sub 
stance,  in  power,  he  adds  that  they  do  differ  "  gradu,  forma, 
specie,"  and  although  the  exact  meaning  of  these  terms  is  not 
quite  clear,  not  a  few  writers  are  inclined  to  see  in  them  more 
than  a  merely  personal  distinction.11  Again,  speaking  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  he  says :  "  The  Father  is  the  whole  sub 
stance,  but  the  Son  is  a  derivation  of  the  whole  and  a  portion, 
as  He  Himself  acknowledges  when  he  states,  '  The  Father  is 
greater  than  I.'  "  12  Hence  the  Father  is  invisible  "  pro  pleni- 
tudine  majestatis,"  whilst  the  Son  is  visible  "  pro  modulo 
derivationis,"  and  "  pro  temperatura  portionis."  13  Similarly 
the  Holy  Spirit,  who  comes  from  the  Father  through  the  Son, 
"  a  Patre  per  Filium,"  is,  as  the  "  vicaria  vis  "  of  the  Son,  in 
a  like  subordinate  position  to  the  Father,  although  He  is  the 
same  God  with  the  Father  and  the  Son.14 

To  some  extent,  no  doubt,  these  and  similar  Subordinationist 
expressions  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  author's  anxiety  to 
refute  at  all  costs  the  views  of  Praxeas,  who  rejected  the  tra 
ditional  teaching  concerning  the  personal  distinctions  in  the 
Godhead.  Hence  this  distinction  is  very  much  emphasized, 
and  then  to  preserve  in  spite  of  it  the  oneness  of  God,  the 
Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  conceived  as  in  some  way  sub 
ordinate  to  the  Father.  There  is  obviously  a  flaw  in  this 
reasoning,  at  least  as  it  is  proposed  by  the  author;  but  not 
to  the  extent,  as  Harnack  maintains,  that  the  unity  of  the  divine 
substance  is  conceived  as  merely  specific  or  generic.  In  the 
author's  mind  it  is  numerical  and  absolute ;  for  he  emphasizes 
again  and  again  that  the  distinction  of  persons  arises  from  a 
distribution  of  the  unity,  not  from  a  separation  and  division ; 15 

11  The  whole  passage  is  as   fol-  unius  status  et  unius  potestatis,  quia 

lows :     "  Sic  quoque  unus  sit  omnia  unus   Deus,   ex  quo   et  gradus   isti 

dum  ex  uno  omnia,  per  substantise  et     formse    et    species  ^  in    nomine 

scilicet     unitatem;     et     nihilominus  Patris    et    Filii    et    Spiritus    Sancti 

custodiatur    oeconomiae    sacrament-  deputantur."     Adv.   Prax.  2. 

um,  quae  unitatem  in  trinitatem  dis-  l2  Ibid.  9. 

ponit,     tres     dirigens,     Patrem     et  13  Ibid.  14. 

Filium  et  Spiritum  Sanctum.    Tres  14  Ibid.  4,   8;   2;    De   Praescript. 

autem  non  statu  sed  gradu,  nee  sub-  13. 

stantia  sed  forma,  nee  potestate  sed  15  Adv.  Prax.  2,  3,  8. 
specie;   unius  autem  substantial  et 


TERTULLIAN'S  THEOLOGY  165 

also  that  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  "  a  trinity  of  one 
divinity,"  that  "  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  are  of  the  substance 
of  the  Father,"  and  that  the  Son  is  God  only  in  so  far  as  He 
is  "  ex  unitate  Patris."  16  The  truth  seems  to  be  that  Tertul- 
lian,  in  common  with  other  writers  of  this  period,  Irenseus, 
Hippolytus,  Novation,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  Origen, 
made  use  of  explanations  and  expressions  savoring  of  Sub- 
ordinationism  simply  to  defend  the  distinction  of  the  divine 
persons  against  Modalism,  but  in  his  usual  passionate  way  he 
allowed  himself  to  be  carried  somewhat  beyond  the  limits  of 
strictly  orthodox  teaching. 

2°.  The  author's  way  of  speaking  is  also  unsatisfactory  in 
reference  to  the  generation  of  the  Son.  He  admits  indeed  the 
eternal  existence  of  the  Word,  even  as  a  distinct  hypostasis,17 
and  also  that  the  Word  thus  existing  from  all  eternity  is  prop 
erly  called  Son,18  but  this  notwithstanding  he  contends  that 
there  was  a  time  when  the  Son  was  not,19  and  that  the  Word 
was  uttered  by  the  Father  in  view  and  at  the  time  of  creation, 
by  which  utterance  His  generation  became  perfect.20  Hence 
besides  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Father,  which  seems  to  be  put  more  or  less  on  a  par  with 
conception,  the  author  admits  a  kind  of  temporal  generation 
in  which  the  Word  is  brought  forth  as  perfect  Son.  In  this 
matter  he  likely  enough  formed  his  views  on  the  writings  of 
the  Apologists,  who  had  used  similar  terms.21 

3°.  In  reference  to  the  God-Man  it  is  specially  deserving  of 
notice  that  the  author  strikes  the  exact  terms  in  bringing  out 
the  unity  of  person  and  the  duality  of  natures,  thus  neatly 
formulating  the  doctrine  which  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  de 
fined  in  almost  identical  words  two  centuries  later.  Com 
menting  on  the  opening  verse  of  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  where  it  is  said  that  Christ  is  the  seed  of  David 
according  to  the  flesh  and  declared  God  according  to  the  Spirit, 
he  writes :  "  He  therefore  is  God,  the  Word  and  Son  of 

16  De  Pudic.  21;  Adv.   Prax.  2;         19Adv.  Hermog.  3. 
IQ.  20  Adv.  Prax.  7. 

17  Ibid.  5.  21  cfr.   D'Ales,  La  Theologie  de 

18  Ibid.  7.  Tertullien,  81-102. 


1 66  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

God.  We  see  a  twofold  state,  not  confused,  but  united  in 
one  person,  God  and  the  man  Jesus."  22  And  not  only,  he 
says  in  another  place,  are  there  two  distinct  natures  in  one 
and  the  same  Christ,  but  also  two  modes  of  action;  for  the 
properties  of  the  two  natures  remain  truly  distinct.23  This 
might  very  well  serve  as  a  definition  against  the  seventh-cen 
tury  Monothelites.  For  the  rest  his  Christology  is  practically 
the  same  as  that  of  Irenseus,  only  that  he  holds  the  singular 
view  of  Christ's  Blessed  Mother  having  lost  her  virginity  in 
His  birth.24  To  this  assertion,  however,  he  was  most  likely 
driven  by  his  anxiety  to  defend  the  reality  of  Christ's  human 
nature  against  the  Docetae  and  Valentinians. 

4°.  In  his  soteriology  he  brings  out  the  vicarious  character 
of  Christ's  redemptive  work,  although  his  views  are  rather 
undeveloped  as  regards  details.  The  Son  of  God  became  in 
carnate  that  He  might  expiate  our  sins,  and  thus  the  innocent 
Christ  was  substituted  for  us  sinners;  without  this  our  ruin 
could  not  have  been  repaired.25  Jesus  was  the  new  Adam  in 
whom  the  souls  of  us  all  were  contained.26  It  was  for  our 
redemption  that  the  Word  took  our  body  and  our  soul  ex 
Maria,  and  subjected  Himself  to  all  our  weaknesses  and  in 
firmities,  sin  alone  excepted.27  Thus  the  Incarnation  is  the 
world's  only  hope. 

5°.  After  the  redemption  is  thus  accomplished,  our  salva 
tion  is  in  our  own  hands.  It  was  through  an  abuse  of  free 
will  that  sin  and  all  its  terrible  consequences  entered  the 
world,28  and  now  that  sin  has  been  blotted  out  by  the  blood  of 
the  Saviour,  it  is  by  a  good  use  of  our  free  will  that  we  must 
attain  salvation.  To  this  we  are  strictly  obliged,  because  we 
are  the  debtors  of  God ;  our  eternal  happiness  must  come  to 
us  as  a  reward  of  our  merits.29  This  view  of  satisfaction  and 
personal  merit  reveals  Tertullian's  legal  bent  of  mind,  yet,  if 
rightly  understood,  it  expresses  the  objective  truth  with  great 

22  Adv.  Prax.  27.  27  De   Carne  Christi,   16,   14;   10, 

23  De  Carne  Christi,  5.  14;  5-9. 

24  Ibid.  23.  28  Adv.  Marcion.  II,  5,  6,  7 ;  I,  22. 

25  De  Bapt.  n.  ™  De  Poenit.  2;  6;  De  Orat.  3,  4; 

26  De  Resurr.   Cam.  53.  De  Exhort.  Cast.  2. 


TERTULLIAN'S  THEOLOGY  167 

exactness,  and  hence  it  survives  in  our  modern  text-books  of 
Dogmatic  Theology.  It  is,  however,  only  a  new  formulation 
of  a  doctrine  as  old  as  Christianity. 

6°.  On  the  Church  the  author  offers  nothing  new,  although, 
even  after  he  had  become  a  Montanist,  he  bore  witness  to  the 
fact,  sarcastically  it  is  true,  that  the  mother-churches,  of 
which  he  had  made  so  much  in  his  earlier  days,  were  regarded 
as  in  some  way  depending  on  the  jurisdiction  of  Rome.  His 
sarcastic  use  of  the  terms  Pontifex  Maximus,  Episcopus 
episcoporum,  must  have  rested  upon  a  more  solid  foundation 
than  the  mere  pretension  of  Callistus  to  the  powers  indicated 
by  these  titles. 

7°.  In  his  teaching  on  the  sacraments  there  are  some  points 
that  deserve  special  notice.  Baptism,  in  which  the  recipient 
is  reborn  in  water  as  the  divine  ichtus,  is  ordinarily  necessary 
for  salvation,  but  it  may  be  replaced  by  martyrdom.30  It 
can  be  conferred  only  once,  and  if  administered  by  heretics  it 
is  invalid.31  Children  are  baptized  according  to  the  custom 
of  the  Church,  but  it  were  better  to  wait  until  they  can  be 
instructed.32  The  bishop  is  the  ordinary  minister,  but  with 
his  consent  priests  and  deacons  can  also  baptize;  and  so  can 
lay  persons,  provided  they  are  not  women.33  Baptism  is  sol 
emnly  administered  at  Easter  and  Pentecost,  still  it  is  valid  if 
conferred  at  other  times.34 

Confirmation  is  administered  immediately  after  baptism. 
The  laying  on  of  hands  is  preceded  by  an  unction,  but  it  is 
not  altogether  clear  whether  this  is  regarded  as  an  essential 
part  of  the  sacramental  rite.35 

The  Eucharist  is  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  where 
with  the  flesh  is  nourished  that  the  soul  may  fatten  on  its 
God.  It  is  the  banquet  prepared  for  the  returning  prodigal, 
the  food  which  Christ  Himself  places  before  us.36  Those  who 
receive  it  are  very  careful  that  nothing  of  the  consecrated 
bread  and  wine  fall  to  the  ground.37  It  is  distributed  by  those 

30  De  Bapt.  i ;  12,  13 ;  16.                        z*  Cfr.     O'Dwyer,     Confirmation, 

31  Ibid.  15.  22,  54  sqq. 

32  Ibid.  15;  18.  36  De  Resurr.  Carn.  8;  De  Pudic. 

33  Ibid.  17.  9. 

3*  Ibid.  19.  37  De  Corona,  3. 


1 68  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

who  preside  over  the  assembled  faithful;  it  is  also  preserved 
to  be  taken  on  fast  days.38  Finally  it  is  offered  as  a  sacrifice, 
both  for  the  souls  departed  and  on  the  anniversary  of  mar 
tyrs.39  All  this  obviously  implies  belief  in  the  Real  Presence, 
and  hence  in  another  place  the  author  goes  so  far  as  to  say 
that  those  who  touch  the  Eucharist  with  hands  that  have 
made  idols  torture  the  Lord's  body.40 

On  the  question  of  penance  Tertullian  was  not  always  con 
sistent,  yet  he  never  denied  that  the  power  of  the  keys  had 
been  given  to  the  Church.  Even  after  he  had  become  a  Mon- 
tanist,  he  only  tried  to  limit  its  application,  and  that  merely 
as  a  matter  of  prudence  and  expediency.  Of  this,  however, 
more  will  be  said  in  another  chapter. 

Holy  orders  the  author  speaks  of  in  passing.  The  hier 
archy  is  made  up  of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  who  per 
form  liturgical  functions  and  instruct  the  faithful.41  In  sev 
eral  places  he  seems  to  hold  that  the  distinction  between  the 
clergy  and  laity  is  simply  the  result  of  ecclesiastical  legisla 
tion.42 

Marriages  must  be  contracted  before  the  Church;  entered 
upon  in  any  other  way,  they  are  considered  as  adulterous 
unions.43  After  his  defection  from  the  faith,  the  author  be 
came  quite  rabid  on  the  subject  of  marriage,  demanding  that 
all  second  marriages  be  absolutely  forbidden.44 

The  only  sacrament  not  mentioned  in  the  writings  of  Ter 
tullian  is  that  of  extreme  unction,  although  it  is  possible  that 
he  refers  even  to  this  when  he  speaks  of  the  donum  ciirationum, 
the  gift  of  healing.  Of  course,  he  had  no  formal  sacramental 
theory,  still  there  is  found  in  his  writings  a  symbolism  that 
may  be  said  to  contain  the  elements  from  which  such  a  theory 
was  later  on  developed.  It  is  the  visible  sign  through  which 
the  invisible  grace  of  God  is  communicated.  Thus  "  the  flesh 
is  washed,  that  the  soul  may  be  cleansed ;  the  flesh  is  anointed, 

38  De  Orat.  19.  «  De  Exhort.  Cast.  7;  De  Pudic. 

39  Ibid. ;  De  Corona,  3.  21. 

4°  De  Idol.  7.  43  jbid.  4. 

41  De  Bapt.  17;  De  Monog.  n.  44  Ad  Uxor.  I,  i;  De  Monog.  i, 

2,  14. 


THE  TEACHING  OF  NOVATIAN  169 

that  the  soul  may  be  consecrated;  the  flesh  is  signed,  that 
the  soul  may  be  fortified;  the  flesh  is  overshadowed  by  the 
imposition  of  hands,  that  the  soul  may  be  illumined ;  the  flesh 
feeds  on  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  that  the  soul  may  grow 
fat  on  its  God/' 45 

8°.  The  author's  teaching  on  eschatological  subjects  is  quite 
archaic  and  need  not  be  specially  noticed  here.  A  word,  how 
ever,  must  be  said  on  his  views  in  reference  to  the  fall  of  man 
and  its  consequences.  Adam's  fall,  he  says,  brought  upon 
all  mankind  not  only  death,  but  sin  and  punishment  as  well. 
There  is  a  solidarity  in  this  transgression,  and  it  introduced 
into  every  soul  a  stain,  an  original  blemish,  a  bent  to  evil.46 
This  seems  to  contain,  in  its  elements  at  least,  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin. 

B  —  NOVATIAN  :  His  TREATISE  ON  THE  TRINITY 

Novatian  was  a  disciple  and  imitator  of  Tertullian.  He  was 
also  the  first  Roman  writer  who  composed  his  works  in  the 
Latin  tongue.  Up  to  the  middle  of  the  third  century  he  was 
a  priest  of  good  standing,  besides  being  generally  esteemed 
as  an  eminent  rhetorician  and  philosopher.  After  the  death 
of  Pope  Fabian,  which  occurred  January  20,  250,  he  wrote, 
in  the  name  of  the  Roman  clergy,  several  letters  to  Cyprian 
of  Carthage,  dealing  with  the  reconciliation  of  the  lap  si.  The 
doctrine  contained  in  them  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the 
traditional  teaching  of  the  Church.  But  shortly  after  this, 
he  became  an  extreme  rigorist  and  started  a  schism  in  opposi 
tion  to  Pope  Cornelius.  His  views  were  adopted  by  many 
others,  and  at  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Nicsea  the  sect  was 
still  in  existence.  He  seems  to  have  been  a  prolific  writer,  but 
of  his  many  works  only  four  have  come  down  to  us.  These 
are  entitled,  De  Cibis  Judaicis,  De  Spectaculis,  De  Bono  Pudi- 
citicc,  De  Trinitate.  Only  the  last  one  is  of  real  doctrinal 
value.  The  following  is  a  brief  summary  of  its  contents : 

In  close  adherence  to  the  order  followed  by  Tertullian  and 

45  De  Resurrect.  Cam.  8.  46  De  Anima,  40,  41 ;  De  Testim. 

Animae,  3. 


1 7o  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

St.  Irenseus,  the  author  treats  first  of  the  omnipotent  Father, 
who  so  far  transcends  the  world  of  finite  things  that  He  is 
beyond  all  thought;  then  he  dwells  at  greater  length  on  the 
nature  of  the  Son,  His  real  or  personal  distinction  from  the 
Father,  His  true  divinity,  and  the  reality  of  His  human  nature; 
finally  he  devotes  one  chapter  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  In  purpose  and  execution  the  whole  is  an  orderly  ex 
position  of  the  Rule  of  Faith. 

In  his  teaching  on  the  Father  he  offers  nothing  special; 
but  when  speaking  of  the  Son  he  emphasizes  the  fact  that  the 
Word  is  eternal  not  merely  as  Word,  but  also  as  Son.  His 
generation  is  strictly  from  all  eternity,  and  therefore  also  His 
divine  sonship;  and  this  necessarily  so,  for  else  the  Father 
would  not  be  Father.47  However,  even  with  this  as  a  suf 
ficient  reason  for  the  divine  sonship,  there  is  a  sort  of  second 
generation  when  the  Word  was  uttered  by  the  Father  in  view 
of  the  creative  work.48  And  thus  the  author  seems  to  fall 
back  into  the  course  of  reasoning  initiated  by  the  Apologists. 

Between  the  Father  and  the  Son  there  is  a  communio  sub- 
stantice,  a  common  possession  of  the  same  substance,  so  that 
the  Son  is  substantial  divina,  truly  divine.49  The  Father  is 
indeed  anterior  to  the  Son,  but  only  in  as  much  as  He  is 
Father;  and  so  the  Son  is  posterior  to  the  Father,  but  only 
in  as  much  as  He  is  Son.  In  substance  and  being  they  are 
coeternal.50  The  Son  is,  however,  a  second  person,  and  as 
such  distinct  from  the  Father.  Nay,  He  is  not  only  distinct, 
but  in  some  way  inferior ;  for  He  is  neither  invisible  nor  incom 
prehensible  as  is  the  Father.51  Here  we  have  the  logical  in 
consistency  again  that  occurs  in  nearly  all  these  writers.  Its 
probable  explanation  was  given  above. 

The  Holy  Ghost  is  never  called  God  by  the  author;  yet  He 
is  represented  as  one  of  the  Trinity,  possessed  of  the  attri 
butes  of  the  Godhead.  He  is  the  illuminator  of  things  divine, 
a  heavenly  power,  existing  from  all  eternity,  and  still  in 

47  De  Trin.  31.  50  De  Trin.  24. 

48  Ibid.  51  Ibid.  31,  27,  61. 

49  Ibid.  11-24;  31- 


ST.  CYPRIAN'S  ECCLESIOLOGY  171 

some  way  inferior  to  the  Son.52  It  is  from  the  Son  that  He 
receives  what  He  gives  to  creatures.53 

In  his  Christology  the  author  strongly  emphasizes  the  unity 
of  person  in  the  Saviour,  but  without  sacrificing  the  distinc 
tion  of  the  two  natures.  Christ  is  at  the  same  time  true  God 
and  true  man,  born  of  a  virgin,  and  having  a  nature  like 
ours.54  Even  as  man  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  not  in  virtue 
of  a  divine  generation,  or  naturally,  but  in  consequence  of 
the  personal  union  of  His  human  nature  with  the  Word.  The 
author  treats  as  heretics  all  those  who  deny  either  the  reality 
of  Christ's  humanity  or  the  truth  of  His  divinity.55 

Many  other  points  of  doctrine  are  touched  upon,  such  as  the 
creation  of  the  world,  man's  likeness  to  God,  his  freedom,  the 
immortality  of  his  soul,  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
the  Church  and  in  the  hearts  of  the  faithful,  but  as  all  this 
is  referred  to  only  in  passing  it  need  not  detain  us  here. 

C  —  ST.  CYPRIAN  :  His  TEACHING  ON  THE  CHURCH 

Cyprian  was  born  in  Africa,  about  the  year  200,  of  wealthy 
pagan  parents.  Early  in  life  he  embraced  the  career  of  a 
rhetorician  and  won  great  renown  in  the  schools  of  Carthage. 
When  about  forty-six  years  old,  he  was  converted  to  Chris 
tianity  and  shortly  after  was  elevated  to  the  priesthood.  To 
wards  the  end  of  the  year  248,  or  early  in  249,  he  was  made 
bishop  of  Carthage  and  metropolitan  of  Proconsular  Africa. 
He  was  not  an  eminent  theologian  but  a  model  bishop,  having 
a  practical  rather  than  a  speculative  mind.  During  the  ter 
rible  persecution  of  Deems  (250-251),  he  concealed  himself 
in  order  not  to  deprive  his  flock  of  their  pastor ;  but  seven  years 
later,  when  the  persecution  of  Valerius  broke  out,  he  remained 
at  his  post  in  spite  of  all  entreaties.  In  a  short  while  he  was 
arrested  and  after  a  brief  trial,  the  Acts  of  which  are  still 
extant,  he  was  beheaded  for  the  faith,  September  i,  258. 

In  theology  St.  Cyprian  was  a  close  follower  of  Tertullian, 
whom  he  was  fond  of  calling  his  master;  but  he  had  none  of 

52  Ibid.  16,  29.  54  Ibid.  24,  13 ;  21,  23. 

53  Ibid.  16.  55Ibid.  n. 


THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

his  master's  impetuosity  and  passionate  violence.  Of  him 
St.  Jerome  writes :  "  It  would  be  superfluous  to  raise  a  monu 
ment  to  his  genius,  as  his  works  are  more  brilliant  than  the 
sun."  Soon  after  his  death,  Cyprian's  writings  were  collected 
by  Pontius,  his  deacon  and  intimate  friend.  They  comprise 
sermons,  pamphlets,  tractates,  and  letters.  In  these  he  touches 
upon  almost  every  point  of  doctrine  and  moral  practice,  but  as 
far  as  the  History  of  Dogmas  is  concerned,  only  his  views 
on  Church  government  and  his  contribution  to  Sacramental 
Theology  are  of  real  importance. 

The  Church,  as  conceived  by  St.  Cyprian,  is  constituted  after 
the  fashion  of  a  municipal  commonwealth,  having  its  plebs, 
made  up  of  the  ordinary  faithful,  and  its  or  do  or  clerus,  con 
sisting  of  those  who  are  entrusted  with  governmental  powers.56 
The  constitution  of  the  or  do  is  hierarchial.  At  the  head,  in 
each  particular  community,  stands  the  bishop,  who  holds  the 
"  sacerdotii  sublime  fastigium."  His  authority  descends  in 
ever  diminishing  degrees  to  priests,  deacons,  and  subdeacons. 
There  are  also  other  persons  entrusted  with  various  ecclesi 
astical  functions,  as  acolytes,  exorcists,  and  lectors.57  Of 
ostiarii  or  porters,  who  at  that  time  held  a  clerical  rank  in 
the  church  of  Rome,  no  mention  is  made. 

Thus  the  Church  is  a  closely  knit  and  sharply  defined  unit, 
of  which  the  clergy  and  the  laity  are  the  constituent  parts.58 
The  chief  bond  of  union  in  this  collective  body  is  the  gov 
erning  authority  derived  from  Christ.  When  the  consecrating 
prelates  lay  their  hands  on  the  head  of  the  new  bishop,  to 
"  confer  upon  him  the  episcopate,"  he  is  made  to  share  in 
the  Saviour's  own  authority  over  the  faithful  entrusted  to 
his  care.  In  virtue  of  this  consecration  he  can  claim  as  applied 
to  himself  the  words  spoken  to  the  Apostles :  "  He  that 
heareth  you,  heareth  me."  59  The  Apostles  were  the  bishops 
of  old,  and  the  present  bishops  are  the  Apostles  of  to-day. 

However,  the  bishops  must  not  use  their  power  tyrannically  ; 
they  must  feed  their  flock  on  the  heavenly  nourishment  laid 
up  in  the  Church.  For  the  Church  is  the  spouse  of  Christ, 

56  Ep.  51,  i;  59,  19.  68Ep.  58,  4- 

67  Ep.  29;  24,  4;  68;  69.  59  Ep-  66,  4,  8;  3,  3. 


ST.  CYPRIAN'S  ECCLESIOLOGY  173 

to  whom  she  must  bring  forth  spiritual  children.60  Thus 
there  is  also  provided  an  internal  bond  of  union,  faith  and 
charity,  which  is  made  strong  by  the  external  bond  of 
authority. 

Hence  the  most  fundamental  note  of  the  Church  is  unity: 
internal  unity  through  practical  faith  and  active  charity,  and 
external  unity  of  clue  subjection  to  lawful  pastors.  And  this 
unity  was  intended  by  Christ  Himself.  It  is  typified  by  His 
seamless  robe,  and  called  to  the  minds  of  all  by  the  Eucharistic 
bread  and  wine,  which,  though  derived  from  many  grains  of 
wheat  and  many  grapes,  are  nevertheless  but  one  heavenly 
nourishment.61  To  this  unity  the  growth  of  the  Church  and 
her  consequent  dispersion  through  many  lands  offers  no  ob 
stacle.  For  from  one  sun  dart  forth  many  rays,  from  one 
spring  flow  many  rivulets,  from  one  tree  spread  out  many 
branches ;  yet  in  each  instance  unity  is  preserved  by  the  oneness 
of  the  source.62  So,  as  there  is  one  God,  one  founder  of  the 
Church,  and  one  source  of  authority,  the  Church  ever  remains 
one  in  spite  of  her  diffusion  throughout  the  world. 

The  proximate  reason  why  this  universal  Church  is  firmly 
fixed  in  its  unity  is  the  solidarity  of  the  episcopate.63  Just  as 
the  Apostles  formed  only  one  Apostolic  college,  and  only  one 
Apostolic  power  was  shared  by  all  in  solidmn,  so  all  the  bishops 
together  form  only  one  episcopate,  each  one  sharing  in  the 
powers  given  to  it  as  a  body.64  Hence  if  an  individual  bishop 
is  neglectful  of  his  duty,  the  others  must  come  to  the  rescue 
of  his  flock.65  And  to  emphasize  this  corporate  union  and 
unity,  Christ  built  His  Church  on  one  alone,  on  Peter;  for 
although  after  the  resurrection  He  gave  equal  powers  to  all 
His  Apostles  .  .  .  nevertheless,  in  order  to  make  manifest  the 
unity,  He  so  disposed  matters  by  His  own  authority  that  the 
origin  of  this  same  unity  should  flow  from  one.66  Heresies 
and  schisms  may  and  do  arise,  but  they  do  not  affect  the  unity 
of  the  Church.  The  well-disposed  do  not  separate  them- 

60  De  Unit.  4-6;  Ep.  33,  i.  «4  Ibid.  3. 

ei  De  Unit.  7 ;  Ep.  63,  13 ;  59,  5-  65  Ep.  68,  3. 

62  De  Unit.  5.  66  De  Unit.  4. 

63  Ibid.  4. 


174 


THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 


selves  from  her  communion.  The  wind  does  not  blow  away 
the  wheat,  nor  does  it  tear  up  the  tree  that  has  its  roots  struck 
deep  in  the  ground;  it  is  the  chaff  that  is  blown  about  by 
every  passing  breeze,  and  trees  without  roots  that  are  thrown 
down  by  the  storm.67 

And  as  there  is  thus  unity  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  so  is 
that  Church  also  one.  To  her  is  applicable  the  Lord's  saying, 
"  He  that  is  not  with  me  is  against  me,  and  he  that  gathereth 
not  with  me  scattereth  abroad."  Without  the  Church  there 
is  no  salvation.68  He  cannot  have  God  as  his  Father,  who 
does  not  have  the  Church  as  his  mother.69  The  Holy  Ghost, 
the  Sanctifier,  was  given  to  the  Church  and  in  her  alone  are 
treasured  up  the  means  of  salvation.  Outside  the  Church 
there  is  no  baptism,  no  priesthood,  no  altar.  She  is  the 
Ark  outside  of  which  there  is  no  safety  from  the  flood,  the 
sealed  spring  from  which  outsiders  cannot  draw.70 

For  the  better  government  of  the  Church,  and  to  meet 
special  difficulties  that  may  arise,  it  is  expedient  that  coun 
cils  be  held  from  time  to  time,  which  bishops  from  the  same  re 
gion  attend  and  at  which  they  act  as  one  body.  The  decrees 
passed  in  these  councils  have  a  binding  force  and  must  be  ob 
served  even  by  the  bishops.71  In  the  matter  of  convening  pro 
vincial  synods  periodically,  St.  Cyprian  simply  enforced  a  well 
established  custom  of  the  African  Church,  which  dated  at  least 
from  the  beginning  of  the  third  century.  Over  these  synods 
he  himself  presided,  and  although  according  to  his  theory  all 
bishops  shared  one  divinely  constituted  authority  in  solidium, 
nevertheless  in  practice  he  seems  to  have  claimed  a  real  pri 
macy  over  the  whole  of  Proconsular  Africa. 

What,  then,  about  the  Primacy  over  the  whole  Church? 
Not  only  is  unity  the  fundamental  note  of  each  individual 
church,  or  of  a  collection  of  churches  belonging  to  the  same 
region,  but  of  the  universal  Church,  the  Church  Catholic,  as 
well.  That  Church  had  never  yet  gathered  in  council,  and 
although  there  was  kept  up  a  constant  correspondence  between 

67  De  Unit.  9;  cfr.  3;  5;  6.  70  Cf r.  De  Unit.   10;   11;   12;   13. 

68  Ep,  73,  21.  71  Ep.  64,  i. 
«&Ep.  74,  7;  De  Unit.  6. 


ST.  CYPRIAN'S  ECCLESIOLOGY  175 

the  particular  churches  of  her  communion,  yet  the  episcopate 
as  a  whole  had  no  opportunity  to  act  as  one  body.  Was  there 
a  head  somewhere  ?  Some  one  bishop  endowed  with  authority 
to  speak  for  all  and  to  make  his  decision  binding  upon  their 
consciences?  Did  Cyprian  admit  such  a  primacy? 

Certain  it  is  that  Cyprian  regarded  the  constitution  of  the 
universal  Church  as  monarchical.  The  Church  Catholic  was 
to  his  mind  not  merely  a  gathering  of  coordinated  local 
churches.  He  taught  quite  clearly  that  Christ  built  His 
Church  on  Peter;  that  Peter  was  at  once  her  foundation  and 
head.  And  Peter,  he  admitted,  continued  to  live  in  the  Bishop 
of  Rome;  hence  in  so  far  at  least  he  acknowledged  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  as  the  Head  of  the  Church.  The  "  cathedra  Petri  " 
was  to  him  the  fountain  and  source  of  all  ecclesiastical  life: 
"  Ecclesise  Catholicae  matrix  et  radix." 72  Hence,  whilst 
speaking  of  the  schism  of  Felicissimus,  he  told  his  own  flock : 
"  God  is  one  and  Christ  is  one,  and  there  is  one  Church  and 
one  cathedra  founded  by  the  voice  of  the  Lord  upon  Peter."  73 
And  writing  to  a  bishop  who  showed  himself  inclined  to 
follow  the  anti-Pope  Novatian,  he  argued :  "  Cornelius  was 
made  bishop  by  the  judgment  of  God  and  of  Christ  .  .  .  when 
the  place  of  Fabian,  that  is,  the  place  of  Peter,  and  the  dignity 
of  the  sacerdotal  cathedra  was  vacant."  Again,  of  those 
schismatics  who  sought  protection  in  Rome,  he  wrote :  "  They 
dare  even  set  sail  for  the  cathedra  of  Peter  and  the  ecclesia 
principals,  whence  sacerdotal  unity  took  its  rise,  carrying  with 
them  letters  from  schismatics  and  impious  persons,  oblivious 
of  the  fact  that  the  Romans  are  they  whose  faith  was  praised 
by  the  Apostle,  and  to  whom  perfidy  cannot  have  access."  74 

The  Roman  Primacy  is  brought  out  still  more  clearly  in 
Cyprian's  treatise  De  Catholics  Ecclesice  Unitate.  In  chapter 
4  occurs  the  passage :  "  The  Lord  saith  to  Peter :  '  I  say 
to  thee,  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  Rock  will  I  build  my 
Church!'  (To  the  same  He  saith  after  His  resurrection: 
'  Feed  my  sheep ! '  Upon  him  He  builds  His  Church,  and  to 

"  Ep.  48,  3.  ™  Ep.  55,  8;  59,  14. 

73  Ep.  43,  5- 


176  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

him  He  commends  the  feeding  of  His  sheep),  and  although 
after  His  resurrection  He  confers  a  similar  power  upon  all 
the  Apostles  and  says :  '  As  the  Father  hath  sent  me,  I  also 
send  you.  Receive  the  Holy  Spirit:  if  you  forgive  any  one's 
sins,  they  shall  be  forgiven  him;  if  you  retain  any  one's  sins, 
they  shall  be  retained,'  nevertheless  in  order  to  show  forth 
the  unity  (He  established  one  cathedra),  and  by  His  own 
authority  He  disposed  matters  in  such  a  way,  that  the  begin 
ning  (and  reason)  of  unity  should  proceed  from  one.  That 
indeed  were  all  the  Apostles  what  Peter  was,  associated  with 
him  in  a  similar  honor  and  power,  but  the  inception  of  both 
proceeds  from  the  unity  (and  the  Primacy  is  given  to  Peter), 
in  order  to  point  out  that  the  Church  of  Christ  is  one  (and  that 
the  cathedra  is  one).  (All  indeed  are  pastors,  but  the  flock 
is  shown  to  be  one,  and  this  must  be  fed  by  the  Apostles  in 
perfect  agreement  of  mind.  Whoso  does  not  hold  this  unity, 
does  he  believe  he  has  faith?  Whoso  deserts  the  cathedra 
of  Peter,  upon  whom  the  Church  is  founded,  does  he  trust 
that  he  is  in  the  Church?)"  75 

If  this  text  be  taken  as  it  stands,  including  the  passages 
enclosed  in  parentheses,  it  undoubtedly  asserts  the  Primacy, 
both  as  given  to  Peter  and  as  continuing  in  his  successors. 
But  until  a  few  years  ago,  the  text  was  quite  commonly  re 
garded  as  interpolated ;  and  most  non-Catholic  critics  main 
tain  this  even  now.  The  reason  advanced  for  asserting  that 
the  text  was  tampered  with  by  a  later  hand,  is  the  fact  that 
there  are  three  series  of  manuscripts,  in  each  one  of  which  the 
text  has  a  different  reading.  One  contains  the  reading  cited 
above ;  another  leaves  out  the  passages  enclosed  in  parentheses ; 
whilst  the  third  is  a  combination  of  the  other  two.  As  there 
appeared  no  compelling  reason  why  the  second  series  of  manu 
scripts  should  omit  passages  contained  in  the  first,  it  was  quite 
generally  assumed  outside  of  Catholic  circles  that  the  first  had 
been  interpolated  by  some  one  who  was  desirous  of  making 
St.  Cyprian  defend  the  Primacy  of  Rome. 

Thus  the  matter  stood  until  a  few  years  ago,  when  Dom 

"  De  Unit.  4. 


ST.  CYPRIAN'S  ECCLESIOLOGY  177 

Chapman  undertook  to  trace  up  the  history  of  the  different 
manuscripts.  The  results  of  his  long  and  detailed  studies  have 
been  given  to  the  learned  world  as  follows :  Both  the  first 
and  the  second  series  are  undoubtedly  genuine.  They  are 
faithful  copies  of  the  work  of  St.  Cyprian.  The  difference 
of  the  reading  is  accounted  for  in  this  way.  The  first  series 
is  derived  from  a  copy  which  Cyprian  sent  to  Rome  during 
the  Novatian  schism.  In  order  to  strike  at  the  root  of  the 
schism,  he  inserted  the  passages  referring  to  the  Primacy  of 
Peter  and  to  the  consequent  authoritative  position  of  the 
Roman  Bishop.  The  second  series  originated  from  a  copy 
directed  against  Felicissimus,  who  was  then  disturbing  the  peace 
of  the  church  at  Carthage.  In  this,  as  is  obvious,  there  would 
be  no  need  of  appealing  to  Peter's  Primacy  nor  to  the  authority 
of  Rome.76 

Batiffol,  Harnack,  and  many  other  scholars  admit  Dom 
Chapman's  contention  that  the  text  of  the  manuscript  in  ques 
tion  is  undoubtedly  authentic,  although  they  do  not  subscribe 
to  all  his  arguments  leading  up  to  this  conclusion.  The  charge 
of  interpolation,  they  say,  must  forever  be  abandoned.  In 
whatever  way  the  difference  of  reading  in  the  two  series  of 
manuscripts  may  finally  be  explained,  certain  it  is  that  both 
hand  down  the  genuine  doctrine  of  St.  Cyprian.77  As  this 
is  the  only  point  of  real  importance,  the  long  continued  con 
troversy  may  be  considered  to  have  been  set  at  rest.  In  con 
sequence,  the  Anglican  contention,  that  Cyprian's  views  on 
the  constitution  of  the  Church  support  the  Episcopalian  posi 
tion,  becomes  doubly  untenable.  If  in  the  heat  of  conflict, 
during  the  baptismal  controversy,  Cyprian  apparently  failed 
to  see  the  full  bearing  of  his  previous  teaching  on  Church  gov 
ernment,  that  only  shows  how  short-sighted  and  inconsistent 
human  reason  may  become  when  obscured  by  passion.  It  does 
not  mean  a  repudiation  of  his  teaching  as  proposed  in  times 
of  peace. 

In  reference  to  the  connection  between  the  Church  and  the 
sacraments,  St.  Cyprian  adopted  the  view  of  Tertullian,  hold- 

76  Revue      Benedictine,      V,      19         77  Cfr.  Batiffol,  Primitive  Cathol- 
(1902),  V,  20   (1903).  icism,  366-373. 


178  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

ing  that  these  visible  means  of  sanctification  are  of  no  avail 
outside  her  communion.  Hence  heretics  cannot  confer  the 
sacraments  validly.  This  view  was  emphatically  rejected  by 
Rome,  with  the  result  that  a  rather  animated  controversy  was 
carried  on  between  Cyprian  and  Pope  Stephen,  of  which  a 
short  account  will  be  given  below.  Of  Cyprian's  teaching  on 
the  sacraments  the  following  points  may  be  noted : 

i°.  Baptism,  which  is  a  second  and  spiritual  birth,  not  only 
may  but  must  be  administered  to  children.  There  is  no  need 
of  deferring  it  till  the  eighth  day  after  birth,  as  is  contended 
by  some  because  of  the  law  governing  circumcision  among 
the  Jews.  Whenever  conferred,  baptism  produces  grace  in 
the  souls  of  children  as  well  as  in  those  of  adults;  and  this  all 
the  more  readily  because  these  little  ones  have  no  personal 
sins,  but  only  the  "  borrowed "  sin  of  Adam.78  Baptism 
of  water  may  be  replaced  by  martyrdom,  which  is  a  baptism  of 
blood;  this  confers  even  a  greater  grace  and  exerts  a  higher 
power.79 

2°.  Confirmation  is  administered  by  the  laying  on  of  hands, 
anointing  the  forehead  with  chrism,  and  the  recital  of  a  prayer. 
Through  this  rite  the  Holy  Ghost  is  given  to  the  newly  bap 
tized.80 

3°.  The  Holy  Eucharist  is  also  received  immediately  after 
baptism,  and  thenceforth  more  or  less  frequently  according  to 
the  devotion  of  the  faithful.81  Its  worthy  reception  presup 
poses  freedom  from  grievous  sins ;  for  it  is  the  "  holy  body  of 
the  Lord."  Those  who  venture  to  approach  the  sacred  table 
without  having  done  proper  penance  for  their  sins,  profane 
the  Saviour's  body  and  blood.82  This  teaching  evidently  im 
plies  belief  in  the  Real  Presence.  Furthermore,  the  Eucharist 
is  a  true  sacrifice,  which  was  first  offered  by  Christ,  and  now 
by  priests  in  His  stead.83  It  is  identical  with  the  sacrifice  of 
the  cross,  and  through  it  the  Redeemer's  sufferings  are  pre- 

78  Ad  Donat.  4 ;  Ep.  64,  2,  5.  81  Ep.  70,  2. 

79  Ep.  73,  22;  Ad  Fortunat.  Praef.  82Ep.  15,  i;  63,  4;  De  Laps.  25. 
4-  83  Ep.  63,  4,  14. 

80  Ep.  73,  9;  70,  2. 


ST.  CYPRIAN'S  ECCLESIOLOGY  179 

sented  to  God.  It  is  efficacious  for  the  living  and  the  dead, 
and  is  also  offered  up  for  penitent  sinners.84 

4°.  Penance  blots  out  sins  committed  after  baptism.  For 
minor  faults  private  penance,  such  as  alms-giving,  is  sufficient ; 
but  if  grievous  sins  have  been  committed,  especially  sins  of 
adultery,  apostasy,  and  homicide,  recourse  must  be  had  to  the 
bishop.85  He  takes  cognizance  of  these  sins,  imposes  a  pro 
portionate  penance,  and  when  that  has  been  duly  performed 
reconciles  the  penitent  to  the  Church.86  Even  secret  sins,  such 
as  sins  of  thought,  when  they  are  of  a  grievous  nature,  must 
be  confessed;  but  no  sins  are  so  grave  that  they  cannot  be 
forgiven  by  the  Church.  In  some  cases,  however,  reconcilia 
tion  is  deferred  till  the  hour  of  death.87 

5°.  Holy  orders  are  conferred  by  the  bishop  assisted  by  the 
presbyterinm.88  When  a  new  bishop  is  to  be  consecrated,  all 
the  neighboring  bishops  of  the  same  province  come  together 
and  take  part  in  the  ceremony.89  Simple  priests  offer  up  the 
Holy  Sacrifice  where  the  bishop  does  not  celebrate;  they  may 
also  be  delegated  to  reconcile  penitents.  It  is  the  office  of 
deacons  to  assist  in  the  sacred  liturgy,  and  to  supervise  the 
distribution  of  alms  among  the  poor.90 

6°.  On  matrimony  the  author  has  nothing  special,  except 
that  he  insists  strongly  on  the  indissolubility  of  Christian  mar 
riage  and  forbids  all  matrimonial  alliances  of  the  faithful 
with  pagans.91 

With  these  three  authors  as  its  first  representatives,  Latin 
theology  made  a  fair  start.  Tertullian  and  Novatian  con 
tributed  very  extensively  to  the  clearing  up  of  orthodox  Trini 
tarian  and  Christological  teaching,  whilst  Cyprian's  writings  on 
the  Church  will  ever  be  a  source  of  valuable  information.  It 
was  not  until  a  century  later  that  the  work  thus  begun  received 
any  noticeable  development,  but  the  lines  of  that  development 
are  already  clearly  traced  in  the  works  of  these  three  writers. 

84  Ep.  63,  17;  i,  2;  16,  2;  17,  2.  88  Ep.  38,  2. 

85  De  Opere  et  Eleem.  n;  14;  De          89  Ep.  67,  5. 

Bono  Patient.  14;  De  Laps.  16.  90  Ep.  3,  3;  56,  3;  18,  i;  57,  6. 

86  De  Laps.   16.  91  Testim.  3,  62,  90;  De  Laps.  6. 

87  Ibid.  28;  29. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  BAPTISMAL  CONTROVERSY:    PENANCE  IN  THE  EARLY 

CHURCH 

In  the  preceding  chapter  we  have  confined  our  remarks 
to  the  doctrinal  statements  of  the  writers  whose  works  called 
for  a  brief  review,  thus  leaving  aside  all  discussion  of  the 
various  controversies  that  were  going  on  during  the  first 
half  of  the  third  century.  This  was  done  for  clearness'  sake, 
so  as  to  keep  the  common  teaching  unobscured  by  the  diver 
gency  of  private  views.  However,  a  few  words  must  be  said 
about  two  points  that  caused  considerable  stir  in  Catholic  cir 
cles,  the  one  giving  rise  to  the  baptismal  controversy  and  the 
other  to  the  question  of  penance. 

A  —  THE  BAPTISMAL  CONTROVERSY  * 

Although  the  reception  of  converts  into  the  Church  was  al 
ways  considered  to  belong  officially  to  the  bishop,  since  he 
was  placed  by  the  Holy  Ghost  as  shepherd  over  the  flock  of 
Christ,  still,  under  given  conditions,  priests  and  deacons  and 
even  lay  persons  might  receive  them  by  duly  administering 
the  sacrament  of  baptism.  In  all  these  cases,  however,  the 
ordinary  supposition  was  that  persons  thus  conferring  the 
sacrament  were  in  communion  with  the  Church.  But  what 
if  they  belonged  to  an  heretical  sect?  Would  the  sacrament 
in  that  case  be  valid  ?  Or  would  it  be  necessary  to  treat  these 
converts  as  if  they  had  not  been  baptized  at  all?  The  same, 
of  course,  would  also  apply  to  confirmation  administered  by 
an  heretical  bishop. 

Till  the  middle  of  the  second  century  there  was  no  occasion 
for  inquiring  into  this  matter,  as  there  were  practically  no 

!Cfr.  Tixeront,  H.  D.  I,  366-376 ;  Duchesne,  The  Early  History  of  the 
Church,  I,  303-312. 

180 


\ 

THE  BAPTISMAL  CONTROVERSY  181 

heretical  sects  which  had  organized  communities  of  their  own ; 
but  a  little  later,  when  Marcion  and  the  followers  of  Montanus 
established  separate  churches,  the  question  became  very  prac 
tical.  At  first  the  course  of  action  adopted  does  not  appear 
to  have  been  uniform;  some  bishops  baptizing  these  converts 
and  others  simply  imposing  their  hands  by  way  of  reconcilia 
tion.  It  was  during  Cyprian's  time  that  the  matter  came  up 
for  general  discussion,  and  the  result  was  the  baptismal  con 
troversy. 

Taking  it  as  an  incontestable  principle  that  the  Church  alone 
is  commissioned  to  forgive  sins  and  to  impart  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  overlooking  entirely  the  distinction  between  a  valid  and  a 
fruitful  reception  of  the  sacraments,  Cyprian  taught  unhesi 
tatingly  that  baptism  administered  by  heretics  was  invalid. 
In  this  he  was,  moreover,  supported  by  the  authority  of  Ter- 
tullian  and  a  well  established  custom  of  rebaptizing  converts 
from  heresy,  not  only  in  Africa,  but  also  at  Antioch,  Caesarea, 
and  other  places.  He  had  against  him  the  custom  followed 
at  Rome,  Alexandria,  Csesarea  in  Palestine,  and  most  places 
of  Western  Europe;  but  above  all  the  weighty  authority  of 
Pope  Stephen. 

When  he  explained  his  position  to  the  Pope,  in  order  to 
solicit  his  approval,  the  latter  not  only  refused  to  sanction  the 
African  custom,  but  sent  a  peremptory  order  to  discontinue  it 
in  future.  "  Si  qui  ergo  a  quacumque  heresi  venient  ad  vos, 
nihil  innovetur  nisi  quod  traditum  est,  ut  manus  illis  imponatur 
in  poenitentiam."  2  "If  therefore  any  come  to  you,  no  matter 
from  what  heretical  sect,  let  nothing  be  renewed  except  what 
has  been  established  by  tradition  (here  at  Rome),  (namely) 
that  hands  be  imposed  on  them  by  way  of  penance."  Fir- 
milian  of  Csesarea,  corresponding  with  Cyprian  on  this  matter, 
states  that  "  Stephen  and  those  who  are  of  the  same  mind 
with  him  contend  that  in  the  baptism  of  heretics  sins  are 
forgiven;  because  it  matters  little  who  confers  baptism,  since 
grace  is  obtained  through  the  invocation  of  the  Blessed  Trinity, 
the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  Nay,  as  the 

2  Ep.  74,  ad  Firmilianum ;  cf  r.  Ep.  75,  ad  Cyprianum. 


1 82  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

successor  of  Peter,  upon  whom  the  foundations  of  the  Church 
have  been  laid,  he  says  even  that  through  the  sacrament  of 
baptism  thus  conferred  all  the  stains  of  the  old  man  are  washed 
away,  deadly  sins  are  forgiven,  the  right  of  divine  sonship  is 
acquired,  and  a  fit  preparation  is  made  for  life  eternal."  3 
Surely  the  "  successor  of  Peter  "  had  a  very  thorough  under 
standing  of  the  efficacy  of  baptism. 

If  in  the  matter  of  Papal  authority  Cyprian's  practice  had 
corresponded  with  his  theory,  as  explained  in  the  preceding 
chapter,  this  decision  of  the  Pope  should  have  ended  the  dis 
cussion.  But  in  the  heat  of  the  combat  he  seems  to  have  for 
gotten  completely  what  he  had  so  strongly  and  clearly  set 
forth  in  times  of  peace.  And  so  the  discussion  waxed  furious 
as  time  passed  on.  Backed  up  by  the  councils  over  which 
he  presided  at  Carthage,  and  also  by  the  letters  he  received 
from  Firmilian  of  Csesarea  in  Cappadocia,  Cyprian  became 
abusive  in  his  correspondence  with  the  Pope.  But  all  to  no 
purpose.  Stephen  stood  firm ;  nor  did  Cyprian  think  of  yield 
ing.  Finally  matters  were  brought  to  a  settlement  by  the 
death  of  the  contestants;  both  laid  down  their  life  for  the 
faith.  However,  even  before  Cyprian  was  called  to  martyr 
dom,  peace  was  established  between  him  and  the  successor 
of  Stephen,  Xystus  II,  and  shortly  after  this  the  Roman  cus 
tom  prevailed  in  Africa.  A  conciliar  decision  was  given  at 
Aries  in  314. 

Whether  Cyprian's  insubordination,  precisely  as  viewed  by 
himself,  touched  merely  a  matter  of  discipline,  or  had  at  least 
an  indirect  bearing  on  faith,  it  is  not  so  easy  to  decide.  Many 
Catholics  take  the  former  view,  exculpating  the  bishop  of 
Carthage  altogether,  on  the  plea  that  in  matters  of  discipline 
well  established  local  customs  have  the  force  of  law,  with 
which  it  would  be  imprudent  for  the  Church  to  interfere. 
However,  this  explanation  does  not  seem  to  be  in  harmony 
with  the  facts  of  the  case.  Failing  to  distinguish  between  the 
validity  and  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  Cyprian  necessarily 
inferred  the  invalidity  of  heretical  baptism  from  his  view  on 
the  position  of  the  Church  in  the  economy  of  salvation.  Hence 

3  Ep.  75,  Firmiliani  ad  Cyprianum. 


PENANCE  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH  183 

the  Roman  practice,  though  he  was  willing  to  tolerate  it  for 
the  sake  of  peace,  appeared  to  him  as  treason  to  the  Church. 
When  he  wrote :  "  Pro  honor e  Ecclesise  atque  unitate  pugna- 
mus,"  4  we  battle  for  the  honor  of  the  Church  and  for  unity, 
he  was  hardly  thinking  of  discipline  alone.  However,  with 
all  its  regrettable  features,  the  controversy  contributed  not  a 
little  towards  clearing  up  an  important  point  of  doctrine, 
namely,  that  the  validity  of  the  sacraments  does  not  depend 
on  the  faith  and  virtue  of  the  minister.  It  was  this  that 
later  on  stood  St.  Augustine  in  good  stead  in  his  contention 
with  the  Donatists. 

B  —  PENANCE  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH  5 

Baptism  was  from  the  very  first  regarded  as  a  spiritual 
regeneration,  a  rebirth  to  newness  of  life,  presupposing  a  com 
plete  break  with  the  sinful  past  and  imposing  the  solemn  obli 
gation  of  reaching  forward  to  future  holiness.  Hence  in  the 
ideal  Christian  life  there  was  no  room  for  sin;  and  if  not  for 
sin,  then  neither  for  penance.  This  all  true  followers  of 
Christ  clearly  realized,  but  they  realized  not  less  clearly  that 
the  ideal  was  difficult  of  attainment;  that  somehow  sin  usually 
had  a  part  in  the  best  of  them,  and  therefore  penance  must 
be  included  in  the  economy  of  salvation  through  Christ.  The 
fact  is,  this  consciousness  of  post-baptismal  sins  and  of  the  con 
stant  need  of  penance  was  so  vivid  that  it  gave  a  distinct 
coloring  to  the  religious  literature  of  the  early  Church.  From 
the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  to  the  Penitential  Canons  of  Peter 
of  Alexandria,  there  is  among  the  various  documents  which 
have  come  down  to  us  hardly  one  that  does  not  in  some  way 
refer  to  the  necessity  of  penance.  Hence  it  is  not  the  fact  of 
penance  that  is  open  for  discussion,  but  its  nature  and  form. 
What  manner  of  penance  was  it?  Had  it  in  the  beginning  an 
exclusively  private  character,  or  did  it  fall  under  the  jurisdic 
tion  of  the  Church?  And  if  the  Church  was  concerned  in 

4Ep.  73,  ii.  L'Edit  de  Calliste;  Tixeront,  H.  D. 

5  Cfr.  O'Donnell,  Penance  in  the  I,  346-354;  Funk,  Kirchengeschicht- 

Early  Church;  Rauschen,  Eucharist  liche  Abhandlungen,  I.   155-181. 
and     Penance,     Part     II;     D'Ales, 


1  84  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

it,  did  she  reconcile  the  penitent  to  God  by  remitting  his  sins, 
or  only  to  herself  by  declaring  that  he  had  sufficiently  repaired 
his  transgression  of  her  social  code?  Lastly,  if  the  Church 
reconciled  the  penitent  to  God,  did  she  extend  her  power  in 
this  respect  to  all  repentant  sinners  or  were  certain  classes 
excluded  from  its  scope? 

That  penance  for  post-baptismal  sins,  when  they  were  of  a 
serious  nature,  was  never  of  an  exclusively  private  character 
is  now  granted  by  all  scholars  ;  and  the  evidence  leading  to  this 
conclusion,  even  as  found  in  the  earliest  documents,  is  deci 
sive.  Thus  Clement  of  Rome  enjoins  the  Corinthians  to 
"  submit  themselves  to  their  priests  and  be  instructed  unto 
penance  "  ;  the  Didache  and  the  Pseudo-Barnabas  direct  their 
Christian  readers  to  "  confess  their  sins  in  the  Church  "  ;  St. 
Ignatius  of  Antioch  tells  the  Philadelphians  that  "  God  remits 
the  sins  of  all  penitents  if  they  repent  unto  the  unity  of  God 
and  the  council  of  the  bishop  "  ;  Hermas  places  penance  as 
practiced  by  Christians  on  a  parallel  with  baptism,  which  was 
in  the  hands  of  the  Church;  Dionysius  of  Corinth  asks  the 
churches  of  Pontus  to  "  receive  kindly  all  who  have  been 
converted  from  any  falling  away,  whether  crime  or  heretical 
depravity"  ;  whilst  the  author  of  the  Secunda  dementis  tells 
his  hearers  to  "  confess  their  sins  while  there  is  still  time  for 
repentance."  All  these  documents  were  issued  before  170, 
and  yet  every  one  of  them  connects  penance  for  post-baptismal 
sins  in  some  way  with  the  intervention  of  the  Church.  After 
this  time  the  evidence  is  so  overwhelming  that  it  need  not  even 
be  cited.  A  mere  glance  at  the  preceding  chapters  will  be 
sufficient  to  convince  any  fair-minded  reader. 

Nor  is  there  much  difficulty  in  showing  that  this  interven 
tion  on  the  part  of  the  Church  had  for  its  object  the  recon 
ciliation  of  the  penitent  not  only  with  herself,  but  also  with 
God;  although  non-Catholic  scholars  are  generally  loath  to 
grant  this.  First  of  all  it  is  historically  certain,  and  this  even 
Protestants  hardly  jy^ntiire-tQ^aU--£ffi^  that 


at  the  hegirmingjrf^^  the  Church  peacefully 

exercised_jhe_rjower  of  forgiving  sins.     Not  even  Tertullian, 
or  Novation,  or  Hippolytus,  in  his  wildest  diatribes  against  the 


PENANCE  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH  185 

leniency  of  the  Popes,  ever  dreamt  of  denying  that  the  Church 
had  power  to  forgive  sins.  They  exempted  certain  sins  from 
the  range  of  this  power,  at  least  for  disciplinary  purposes; 
but  the  power  itself  they  admitted,  forced  thereto  by  the 
consensus  of  the  churches.  Where,  then,  in  the  next  place, 
is  the  starting  point  of  this  consensus?  If  in  the  beginning 
the  Church  reconciled  penitents  only  to  herself,  when  did  she 
first  presume  to  reconcile  them  also  to  God? 

That  history  does  not  record  a  change  of  views  and  practice 
in  this  matter  is  freely  granted,  in  so  far  as  positive  evidence 
comes  in  question.  But  more.  When  schism  and  heresy 
bring  the  reconciliation  of  penitents  into  the  foreground  of 
discussion,  the  whole  Christian  world  understands  it  to  imply 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  effected  through  the  ministry  of  the 
Church;  and  not  even  the  hoariest  among  the  official  cus 
todians  of  tradition,  though  taught  by  men  whose  youth  dated 
back  to  the  dawn  of  the  second  century,  have  apparently  the 
slightest  recollection  that  in  olden  times  this  matter  was  re 
garded  in  a  different  light.  When  Irenseus,  who  had  been 
a  disciple  of  Polycarp,  who  in  his  turn  had  been  a  disciple  of 
John  the  Apostle  and  Evangelist,  relates  incidentally  that 
certain  women  perished  miserably  through  despair,  because 
they  were  ashamed  to  confess  their  sins,  does  he  even  hint 
that  they  might  have  confessed  their  sins  to  God  alone  and 
thus  have  obtained  forgiveness  without  recourse  to  the  power 
of  the  Church?  The  inference  plainly  is  that  he  conceived 
the  intervention  of  the  Church  to  have  for  its  object  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  as  well  as  the  restoration  to  her  com 
munion.  But  at  all  events,  neither  he  nor  any  of  those  taught 
by  him,  nor  any  others  by  whom  the  traditions  of  early  Chris 
tianity  were  transmitted  to  the  third  century  bishops,  ever 
raised  the  slightest  protest  against  the  supposed  innovation 
of  forgiving  sins.  Under  the  circumstances  this  is  more  than 
an  argumentum  ex  silentio.  It  shows  that  these  men  were  as 
conversant  with  the  words  of  the  Saviour  recorded  by  St. 
John  as  was  Origen  when  he  wrote :  "  He  on  whom  Jesus 
has  breathed,  as  He  did  on  His  Apostles  .  .  .  remits  what 
God  remits  and  retains  sins  that  are  incurable.  ,  .  This  is 


186  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

seen  from  what  is  said  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  concerning 
the  power  of  remission  granted  to  the  Apostles :  *  Whose  sins 
you  shall  forgive  they  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins  you  shall 
retain  they  are  retained.'  "  6 

When,  therefore,  we  read  in  the  documents  belonging  to 
the  sub-Apostolic  age  that  Christian  penitents  must  have  re 
course  to  the  ministry  of  the  Church,  although  the  expres 
sions  used  in  themselves  tell  us  nothing  about  the  nature  of 
this  ministry,  yet  in  the  light  that  is  thrown  upon  them  by 
the  subsequent  attitude  and  practice  of  men  who  were  per 
fectly  familiar  with  the  views  entertained  in  these  early  times, 
they  bear  positive  testimony  to  the  fact  that  the  intervention 
of  the  Church  in  the  reconciliation  of  penitents  was  regarded 
then,  as  it  was  regarded  later  on,  to  extend  itself  even  to  the 
forgiveness  of  sins.  A  little  historic  sense  would  seem  to 
make  this  conclusion  unavoidable. 

The  third  question  still  remains:  To  what  extent  did  the 
Church  make  use  of  this  power  of  forgiving  sins?  Did  she 
extend  it  to  all  penitents,  or  were  certain  classes  excluded 
from  its  benefits?  That  the  power  was  not  limited  in  itself, 
or  by  the  terms  of  its  concession  by  Christ,  is  sufficiently 
obvious,  as  its  purpose  was  to  make  salvation  possible  for 
those  who  truly  repented  of  their  sins;  and  this  is  clearly 
acknowledged  by  Tertullian  in  his  schismatic  ravings  against 
Callistus.  Arguing  against  the  remission  of  the  sin  of  adul 
tery,  which  the  Pope  had  granted  on  the  plea  that  the  Church 
has  the  power  to  forgive  sins,  he  cries  out :  "  The  Church, 
you  say,  has  the  power  to  forgive  sins.  This  I  acknowledge 
the  more  and  adjudge  proper,  who  have  the  Paraclete  Himself 
in  the  persons  of  the  new  prophets,  saying :  '  The  Church  has 
the  power  to  forgive  sins,  but  I  will  not  do  it,  lest  they  commit 
others  again/  .  .  .  Let  Penance  win  pardon  from  the  bishop 
for  lighter  sins,  for  the  greater  and  irremissible  from  God 
alone."  7 

Hence  the  question  narrows  itself  down  to  this :  Did  the 

6De  Orat.  28;  cfr.  In  Luc.  Horn.          7  De  Pudic.  21,  7. 
17- 


PENANCE  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH  187 

Church,  though  conscious  of  having  the  power  to  forgive  all 
sins,  at  any  period  restrict  the  use  of  this  power  so  as  to 
exclude  the  crimina  mortalia,  usually  classed  as  adultery,  homi 
cide,  and  apostasy?  Thus  limited  the  question  is  purely  dis 
ciplinary,  and  as  such  does  not  strictly  belong  to  the  History 
of  Dogmas.  However,  a  few  general  remarks  on  this  topic 
will  be  in  place. 

Hippolytus,  whilst  in  open  schism  against  Pope  Callistus, 
accuses  him  of  being  the  first  to  concede  reconciliation  to 
adulterers  and  fornicators  and  criminals  of  all  sorts.  "  That 
deceiver,"  he  says,  "  was  the  first  who  made  an  attempt  to 
give  free  indulgence  to  the  depraved  lusts  of  mankind,  when 
he  asserted  that  all  men's  sins  were  remitted  by  himself."  8 
As  far  as  we  know,  Callistus  only  issued  a  decree,  and  a 
peremptory  one,  says  Tertullian,  that  adulterers  and  forni 
cators  should  be  admitted  to  communion  after  they  had  duly 
repented  and  performed  the  penance  enjoined;  though  it  is 
quite  possible  that  the  decree  was  intended  to  be  universal  in 
its  extension.  But  however  that  may  be,  he  acted  in  perfect 
harmony  with  the  traditions  of  the  past.  A  few  pertinent  in 
stances  will  show  this  with  sufficient  clearness. 

Thus  when  Hernias  draws  a  parallel  between  the  second 
penance  and  baptism,  he  evidently  excludes  from  the  efficacy 
of  the  former  no  sin  whatever,  although  he  limits  its  avail 
ability  to  a  certain  period  of  time.  Hence  we  may  rightly 
infer  that  in  his  day  nothing  was  known  of  the  irremissibility 
of  certain  sins.  In  fact,  he  explicitly  states :  "As  many  as 
do  penance  from  their  hearts,  and  purify  themselves  of  their 
iniquities,  and  do  not  add  to  their  evil  deeds,  shall  receive 
from  God  the  forgiveness  of  their  former  sins."  9  The  only 
irremissible  sin  he  knows  of  is  that  of  persons  who  are  so 
hardened  as  to  refuse  to  repent.  Yet,  as  was  pointed  out 
above,  according  to  him  forgiveness  was  to  be  obtained  through 
the  Church. 

Neither  Clement  of  Rome,  nor  the  author  of  the  Didache, 
nor  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  nor  the  Secunda  dementis,  know 

8Philosoph.  9,  12.  9Simil.  8,  II,  3. 


THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

of  any  restrictions;  whilst  Dionysius  of  Corinth  explicitly 
directs  the  churches  of  Pontus  to  "  receive  back  kindly  all  who 
have  been  converted  from  any  falling  away,  whether  crime 
or  heretical  depravity."  10  Irenseus  certainly  did  not  exclude 
fornicators  from  pardon,  as  is  sufficiently  evident  from  what 
he  says  about  the  women  who  had  been  seduced  by  a  certain 
Marcus,  and  to  whom  reference  was  made  above.  The 
church  of  Rome  knew  nothing  about  the  exclusion  of  con 
verted  heretics,  as  appears  from  the  same  author's  remark 
about  Cerdon,  and  also  from  Tertullian's  statement  about 
Marcion."  n  Clement  of  Alexandria,  citing  the  reconcilia 
tion  of  the  robber  chief  by  St.  John,  evidently  saw  no  reason 
why  homicides  should  not  be  reconciled,  although  he  was  a 
priest  of  good  standing  and  a  learned  man,  and  therefore  must 
have  known  what  was  and  what  was  not  in  harmony  with 
the  custom  of  the  Church.12  And  lastly,  even  Tertullian, 
whilst  still  a  Catholic,  made  the  second  penance  quite  as  ex 
tensive  in  its  efficacy  as  that  of  baptism,  calling  it  a  second 
plank  of  salvation  for  all  those  who  unfortunately  had  fallen 
into  grievous  sin  after  their  baptismal  regeneration.13  And 
this  he  himself  acknowledged  after  he  had  become  a  Mon- 
tanist,  saying  that  he  did  not  blush  for  his  change  of  views.14 
Surely  this  excludes  anything  like  an  appeal  to  tradition  for 
the  supposed  restriction  placed  upon  the  use  of  her  power  by 
the  Church. 

Taking  all  this  into  account,  it  would  seem  to  be  historically 
certain  that  the  Church  Catholic  never  barred  the  way  to 
reconciliation  even  to  those  who  were  guilty  of  the  greater 
sins.  She  placed  her  conditions  of  readmission,  imposed  a 
severe  and  usually  protracted  penance,  but  when  all  this  had 
been  complied  with,  she  was  glad  to  receive  the  lost  sheep 
back  into  her  fold.  In  particular  or  local  churches  more 
rigoristic  views  prevailed  at  different  times,  but  that  is  too 
intricate  a  question  to  be  dealt  with  here.  As  far  as  the  ques- 

10  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  4,  23.  12  Quis  Dives,  42. 

11  Adv.     Haeres.     3,    4,     3 ;     De          13  De  Poenit.  7,  10,  cfr.  4,  i ;  7,  3. 
Praescript  30.  14De  Pudio.  1,11. 


PENANCE  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH  189 

tion  of  penance  in  the  early  Church  is  of  interest  to  the 
History  of  Dogmas,  quite  enough  has  been  said  in  the  pre 
ceding  paragraphs. 


CHAPTER  XII 

FIRST  ATTEMPTS  AT   SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY   IN  THE 

EAST* 

Until  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century  no  attempt  seems 
to  have  been  made  to  establish  Christian  schools,  in  which 
the  traditional  teaching  of  the  Church  might  be  more  or  less 
scientifically  investigated  and  explained.  The  first  institu 
tion  of  this  kind,  so  far  as  the  records  go,  was  the  catechetical 
school  at  Alexandria.  Precisely  when  this  school  was  started 
is  a  matter  of  conjecture,  but  about  180  it  began  to  attract 
considerable  attention.  It  was  then  under  the  able  direction 
of  Pantaenus,  a  converted  Stoic  philosopher.  One  of  his  most 
distinguished  disciples  was  Clement,  who  some  years  later 
became  his  successor  in  the  direction  of  the  school.  Clement 
in  his  turn  was  succeeded  by  his  own  disciple  Origen,  under 
whose  guidance  the  school  of  Alexandria  reached  its  highest 
fame.  Pantsenus  does  not  appear  to  have  written  any  books, 
but  his  two  immediate  successors  exerted  great  literary  activity, 
and  their  works  now  call  for  a  brief  review. 

A  —  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA 

Titus  Flavius  Clemens,  as  his  name  indicates,  was  probably 
descended  from  a  freedman  of  the  Christian  consul  of  that 
name.  After  his  conversion  he  studied  under  several  masters, 
apparently  without  much  satisfaction  to  himself,  until  he  met 
Pantsenus  in  Egypt,  and  with  him  he  found  rest  for  his  soul. 
He  was  entrusted  with  the  direction  of  the  school  in  190,  and 
continued  in  office  until  the  persecution  of  Septimus  Severus, 
202  or  203,  forced  him  to  withdraw.  He  was  a  man  of  wide 

1  Cf r.  Tixeront,  H.  D.  I,  243-284;  tive  Catholicism,  146-163;  294-331; 
Duchesne,  The  Early  History  of  the  Bardenhewer,  Altkirch.  Lit.  II,  15- 
Church,  I,  247-260;  Batiffol,  Primi-  159. 

190 


ST.  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA  191 

reading,  in  profane  as  well  as  in  sacred  literature,  but  his 
learning  appears  to  have  been  extensive  rather  than  profound. 
A  saintly  priest,  and  ever  devoted  to  the  interests  of  the  faith, 
he  nevertheless  always  cherished  an  ardent  love  for  the  philos 
ophy  of  the  past.  He  not  only  employed  its  methods  in  his 
exposition  of  Christian  doctrine,  but  frequently  also  made  use 
of  its  contents. 

It  was  by  means  of  philosophy  that  Clement  thought  he 
could  devise  a  system  of  theological  teaching  which  should 
indeed  have  faith  for  its  solid  and  irremovable  foundation, 
but  in  the  building  up  of  its  superstructure  should  draw  freely 
from  the  sources  of  natural  knowledge.  With  this  end  in 
view  he  labored  for  many  years  at  his  great  work,  Intro 
duction  to  Christianity,  which  consists  of  three  parts  called 
respectively  Protrepticus,  Pacdagogus  and  Stromata.  The 
names  are  taken  from  the  method  supposedly  followed  by  the 
Logos,  who  first  admonishes,  then  trains,  and  lastly  instructs. 
The  three  divisions,  however,  hang  very  loosely  together,  and 
so  too  does  the  reasoning  in  each  part.  The  work  is  an  attempt 
at  systematizing,  but  withal  a  rather  poor  one. 

The  leading  thought  that  runs  through  the  three  divisions, 
and  that  gives  some  sort  of  unity  to  the  whole,  is  the  harmony 
that  must  necessarily  exist  between  faith  and  knowledge. 
Both  have  their  source  in  the  same  God,  and  although  revela 
tion  and  faith  must  ever  hold  the  first  and  highest  place  in 
the  Church  of  Christ,  still  philosophy  and  knowledge  should 
not  be  excluded  from  her  sacred  precincts.  There  is  a  middle 
way  between  the  rationalism  of  the  Pseudo-Gnostics  and  the 
extreme  supernaturalism  of  many  narrow-minded  Catholics. 
There  is  a  true  gnosis  as  well  as  a  false  one ;  a  gnosis  that  is 
indeed  not  necessary  for  salvation,  but  that  leads  believing 
Christians  to  a  higher  perfection. 

With  this  thought  in  his  mind,  Clement  begins  the  Protrepti- 
cus  with  an  earnest  invitation  to  the  pagan  world,  urging  the 
worshipers  of  false  gods  to  turn  away  from  the  foolish  songs 
of  mythology  and  listen  to  the  new  canticle  of  the  Logos, 
who  came  forth  from  Sion  to  teach  the  world  true  wisdom. 
Pagan  gods  and  mysteries  and  their  sacrificial  worship  are 


1 92  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

but  idle  vagaries,  ugly  excrescences  of  human  reason  gone 
astray;  and  although  some  philosophers  and  poets  have  in 
many  things  proclaimed  the  truth,  yet  their  conception  of  it 
was  but  shadowy  and  imperfect.  The  full  truth  is  found  only 
in  the  Prophets,  who  were  taught  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Their 
teaching  is  now  completed  by  the  Logos,  who  appeared  on 
earth  to  cure  the  world  of  its  moral  diseases  and  make  known 
to  men  the  blessings  of  God. 

Once  brought  under  the  influence  of  the  Logos,  men  must 
go  through  a  course  of  training  in  Christian  virtue.  This  is 
the  object  and  scope  of  the  Paedagogus.  The  trainer  is  the 
Logos  Himself,  who  through  the  teaching  of  faith  shows  His 
followers  how  to  regulate  their  daily  lives,  in  relation  to  God, 
the  neighbor,  and  themselves.  It  is  not  fear  that  makes  His 
training  efficacious,  but  love  and  kindness.  It  is  true,  the 
Logos  carries  a  rod,  yet  this  is  a  symbol  of  grace  rather  than 
of  punishment. 

In  connection  with  this,  the  author  points  out  the  importance 
of  faith  and  its  sufficiency  for  all  practical  purposes  of  life. 
Faith,  he  says,  is  the  perfection  of  knowledge.  Holy  Scrip 
ture  says,  whoso  believeth  in  the  Son  hath  life  everlasting: 
what  then  is  there  beyond  that  should  be  wanting  to  faith? 
Nothing :  faith  is  perfect  in  itself  and  all-sufficient.  However, 
the  perfection  of  faith  is  only  relative;  it  is  a  means  of  pre 
paring  us  for  what  is  greater.  Beyond  the  perfection  of  faith 
here  on  earth,  looms  large  the  perfection  of  possession  in 
heaven  wherein  are  fulfilled  the  words  of  the  Saviour :  "  Be  it 
done  unto  thee  as  thou  hast  believed." 

Faith,  then,  as  shown  forth  in  the  practice  of  virtue  is  suf 
ficient;  but  faith  may  be  perfected  by  knowledge,  by  the  true 
gnosis,  which  not  only  accepts  the  teaching  of  the  Logos  and 
puts  it  into  practice,  but  aims  at  an  intimate  understanding  of 
the  things  of  God.  As  in  one  sense  faith  is  the  perfection  of 
knowledge,  so  in  another  sense  is  knowledge  the  perfection 
of  faith.  Beginning  with  faith  and  ever  growing  in  grace, 
one  must  advance  along  the  path  of  knowledge  to  a  fuller 
realization  of  divine  things.  And  so  it  is  only  the  Gnostic 
who  is  a  perfect  Christian;  not  the  Pseudo-Gnostic  of  the 


ST.  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA  193 

sects,  but  the  true  Gnostic  whose  life  is  in  accord  with  the 
higher  knowledge  of  the  faith.  Such  a  one  is  indifferent  to 
all  adversity,  is  indefatigable  in  the  practice  of  charity,  and 
labors  incessantly  to  promote  the  interests  of  God.  Hence 
there  are  two  kinds  of  Christians :  the  simple  folk  who  are 
satisfied  with  believing,  and  the  more  intelligent  who  aim  at 
gnosis.  They  are  both  dear  to  the  Lord,  but  those  who 
have  gnosis  are  more  perfect  and  therefore  entitled  to  a 
higher  degree  of  glory  in  heaven. 

In  connection  with  this  general  summary  of  the  contents 
of  Clement's  chief  work,  the  following  points,  taken  in  sub 
stance  from  Moehler's  History  of  the  Church,  are  deserving 
of  special  attention.  They  bring  out  with  great  clearness  the 
Alexandrian  doctor's  position  in  regard  to  faith. 

As  the  Son  of  God  has  become  truly  man,  divine  teaching 
has  become  human  and  human  teaching  has  become  divine.2 
Faith  is  based  on  the  authority  of  the  Son  of  God.  Who 
would  be  so  rash  as  to  demand  proofs  of  God  as  he  would  of 
man?3  The  authority  of  Christ  is  represented  by  the  Catho 
lic  Church,  so  that  her  teaching  and  her  authority  are  the  same 
as  His.4  Hence  faith  is  the  eternal  foundation  of  all  religious 
knowledge;  it  must  guide  us  in  all  our  studies  of  divine 
things.5  Religious  knowledge  is  acquired  by  meditating  on  the 
truths  of  faith ;  faith,  therefore,  is  the  criterion  of  knowledge.6 
True  gnosis,  or  gnosis  according  to  the  mind  of  the  Church,  is 
nothing  else  than  a  thorough  understanding  of  the  faith,  taking 
due  account  of  the  grounds  upon  which  it  rests  and  the  relation 
that  exists  between  the  various  truths  which  form  its  con 
tents.7  Religious  knowledge  and  faith  are  of  the  same  nature, 
and  faith  itself  beckons  us  to  the  acquisition  of  knowledge.8 
Subjective  faith  is  a  clinging  to  the  invisible,  a  union  of  the 
soul  with  the  object  of  faith.9  As  man  is  free,  his  faith  is 
essentially  an  act  of  obedience  to  God.  Hence  no  demonstra- 

2  Paedag.  i,  2,  3,  i.  7  Ibid.  7,  10. 

3  Strom.  6,  i.  8  Ibid.  6,  2;  cfr.  7,  10,  57,  3. 

4  Ibid.  2,  11-12;  7,  15-18.  9  Ibid.  2,  2-4;  5,  i;  cfr.  Paedag. 

5  Ibid.  2,  4,  ii ;  7,  10,  16.  2,  2,  8,  4-6. 

6  Ibid.  2,  2-4. 


I94  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

tion  can  ever  be  the  cause  of  faith;  it  can  do  no  more  than 
make  the  truth  acceptable.  Faith  depends  on  the  will  subject 
to  the  all-wise  and  all-truthful  God.  And  because  faith  thus 
necessarily  implies  submission  of  the  will,  hence  it  belongs  to 
man's  moral  life  and  must  find  issue  in  works.  Faith  without 
works  is  dead.10 

Besides  the  Introduction  to  Christianity,  another  little 
treatise  has  come  down  to  us  under  the  title,  Quis  Dives  Sal- 
vetur,  What  Rich  Man  May  Be  Saved?  In  it  the  author 
gives  a  very  sane  and  Christian  exposition  of  the  nature  and 
use  of  property.  Admitting  the  rights  of  private  ownership, 
he  points  to  the  fact  that  the  actual  possessors  of  wealth  are 
nevertheless  only  stewards  of  the  Lord.  They  may  not  waste 
their  possessions  in  extravagant  living,  but  whatever  they  do 
not  need  for  their  own  reasonable  use  they  must  employ  in 
assisting  the  needy.  Thus  used,  wealth  becomes  a  means  of 
salvation. 

Many  points  of  doctrine  are  casually  explained  in  these  two 
works,  especially  in  the  first ;  but  only  a  few  of  them  can  here 
be  mentioned.  Something  may  also  be  gathered  from  the 
numerous  fragments  of  his  commentaries  of  Holy  Scripture, 
which  are  usually  cited  under  the  title  of  Adumbrationes.  The 
main  points  of  interest  in  reference  to  the  History  of  Dogmas 
are  the  following: 

i°.  Speaking  of  the  Logos,  Clement  insists  strongly  on  His 
eternal  generation :  as  the  Father  was  always  Father,  so  the 
Logos  was  always  Son ;  and  although  He  came  forward  at  the 
moment  of  creation,  yet  thereby  His  state  was  not  changed.11 
In  this  the  view  of  the  Apologists,  as  interpreted  by  many 
modern  critics,  is  evidently  corrected. 

2°.  The  Logos  is  "  evidentissime  verus  Deus  " ;  He  is  equal 
to  the  Lord  of  the  universe,  because  He  is  His  Son.12  He 
is  one  with  the  Father,13  the  Father  is  in  the  Son  and  the 
Son  is  in  the  Father:  to  both  prayers  are  offered  up  by  the 
faithful.14 

10  Strom.  6,  13 ;  7,  5 ;  6,  14,  108,  4-  13  Paedag.  i,  8. 

11  Ibid.  7,  2;  5,  i;  Adumbrat.  in  14  Paedag.  i,  8,  62,  3;  I,  7;  Strom. 
Joann.  i,  i;  Paedag.  i,  8,  62,  3.  5,  14;  3,  13;  5,  26;  In  Joan,  i,  i; 

12  Protrept.  10,  no,  i.  Paedag.  3,  12,  100,  2. 


ST.  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA  195 

3°.  Of  the  Holy  Ghost  the  author  says  nothing  very  spe 
cial,  yet  he  represents  Him  in  passing  as  a  divine  person  and 
inspirer  of  Holy  Scripture.  "  There  is  indeed  one  Father  of 
all,  and  also  one  Word  of  all,  and  one  Holy  Spirit,  and  He 
is  everywhere."  "  Not  one  point  of  Holy  Scripture  shall  pass 
away  without  its  fulfillment :  for  the  mouth  of  the  Lord,  the 
Holy  Spirit,  has  spoken  whatever  is  contained  therein."  15 

Thus  he  conceives  the  Godhead  as  a  Trias,  or  Trinity,  and 
commenting  on  a  text  in  the  Timseus  of  Plato,  he  says,  "  I 
understand  this  to  refer  to  the  Holy  Trinity :  the  third  is  the 
Holy  Spirit,  the  second  is  the  Son  through  whom  all  was 
made  according  to  the  will  of  the  Father."  16  The  three  must 
be  adored  as  one  God.17  The  Father  is  incomprehensible  and 
ineffable  being;  the  Son  is  wisdom,  knowledge,  truth,  and  all 
related  thereto;  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  light  of  truth,  light 
without  darkness,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  who  communicates 
Himself  without  division  to  all.18 

4°.  The  world  was  created  out  of  nothing:  neither  matter 
nor  spirit  is  eternal,  nor  did  souls  exist  before  they  were  united 
to  their  bodies.19  Adam  and  Eve  were  created  in  infancy,  and 
their  sin  consisted  in  having  carnal  relations  before  the  time 
appointed  by  God.  That  sin  was  the  source  of  all  evil  in 
the  world,  and  since  then  no  one  is  without  sin,  save  only 
the  Incarnate  Logos.  Still  to  each  one  only  his  own  sins 
are  imputed.20  The  author  speaks  occasionally  as  if  there 
were  two  souls  in  man,  the  one  carnal  and  the  other  spiritual ; 
however,  he  defines  man  as  "  composed  of  a  rational  and  irra 
tional  part,  of  soul  and  body."  21 

5°.  In  Christ,  the  Incarnate  Logos,  there  are  two  natures 
and  only  one  person.  He  is  one  Logos,  both  God  and  man ; 
He  is  God-Man.22  The  author  seems  to  understand  quite  well 
the  communicatio  idiomatum,  and  even  holds  that  the  union 
of  the  human  and  the  divine  elements  in  Christ  was  not  dis- 

15  Protrept.  i,  6,42,1;  9,  82,  i.       20  Protrept.  11,  in,  I ;  Strom.  5, 

16  Strom.  5,  14.  14;  3,  13;  5,  26. 

17  Paedag.  3,  2.  21  Ibid.  6,  6,  16 ;  4,  3. 

18  Strom.  6,  16.  22  Ibid.  5,  3 ;  5,  14 ;  Paedag.  i,  6 ; 
"Strom.  5,  14;  3,  13;  5,  26.  3,  I. 


196  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

solved  in  death :  "  The  Word  living  and  buried  with  the 
Christ  is  exalted  in  heaven."  23  Christ's  human  nature,  though 
real  like  ours,  was  not  affected  by  hunger  or  thirst  or  other 
corporal  wants,  nor  was  He  Himself  moved  by  passions  of  any 
kind.  He  came  among  us  to  be  our  redemption,  our  ransom, 
a  propitiation  for  our  sins,  an  immolated  victim;  He  wishes 
to  save  all,  but  each  one's  salvation  will  depend  on  the  use 
he  makes  of  the  redemption  thus  wrought.24 

6°.  Those  who  wish  to  be  saved  must  belong  to  the  Church ; 
for  she  is  the  city  of  the  Logos,  the  temple  built  by  God.25 
There  is  only  one  Church,  the  one  that  has  come  down  to  us 
from  olden  days,  and  which  heretics  try  their  utmost  to  split 
up  into  many.26  In  this  Church  there  are  bishops,  priests, 
and  deacons,  in  imitation,  the  author  thinks,  of  the  angelic 
hierarchy.27  Among  the  Apostles,  Peter  held  the  first  place, 
the  Primacy  over  all  the  rest;  for  Peter  alone  together  with 
Himself  the  Saviour  paid  the  tribute.28 

7°.  Admission  into  the  Church  is  by  baptism.  "  Being  bap 
tized,  we  are  enlightened;  being  enlightened,  we  are  adopted 
as  sons;  being  adopted,  we  are  perfected;  being  perfected, 
we  are  made  immortal :  '  I/  saith  He,  '  have  said,  you  are  gods 
and  sons  of  the  Most  High.'  Baptism  is  designated  in  many 
ways,  a  grace,  an  illumination,  perfection,  and  a  bath.  A  bath, 
because  in  it  we  wash  away  our  sins.  A  grace,  because  by  it 
are  remitted  the  punishments  due  to  sins.  An  illumination, 
because  in  it  we  behold  that  holy  and  salutary  light  by  which 
we  see  God.  Perfection,  because  that  we  call  perfect  to  which 
nothing  is  wanting.  For  what  can  be  wanting  to  him  who 
knows  God?"29 

8°.  The  Eucharist  is  repeatedly  referred  to,  but  the  author's 
way  of  speaking  of  it  is  not  very  satis  factory.  Although  he 
clearly  enough  admits  the  Real  Presence,  he  usually  enlarges 
upon  the  symbolic  aspect  of  the  mystery.  "  The  mixture  of 

23Protrept.   n;   Paedag.   I,  5 ;   I,          26  Strom.  7,  17,  107,  3. 
6.  27  Ibid.  6,  13,  107,  2. 

24  Strom.  6,  9,  71,  2;  2,  6;  Paedag.          28  Quis  Dives,  21,  3. 

3,  12 ;  i,  6 ;  Quis  Div.  37.  29  Paedag.  i,  6,  26,  1-3. 

25  Strom.  4,  20;  Paedag.  i,  6. 


ORIGEN :    ALEXANDRIA  AND  OESAREA       197 

the  two,  that  is,  of  the  drink  and  the  Word,  is  called  the 
Eucharist ;  that  is  to  say,  a  praiseworthy  and  remarkable  grace, 
by  which  those  who  partake  of  it  are  sanctified  in  body  and 
soul."  Still,  "  this  it  is  to  drink  the  blood  of  Jesus,  namely, 
to  become  a  partaker  of  the  incorruption  of  the  Lord."  30 

9°.  Of  penance  he  says  that  theoretically  Christians  should 
not  stand  in  need  of  it,  since  in  baptism  they  have  arisen  to  a 
new  life;  but  practically  they  do,  as  experience  only  too  plainly 
shows.  Some  sins  are  so  grievous  that  they  demand  a  public 
satisfaction  and  reconciliation,  but  this  should  not  be  granted 
more  than  once.  For  this  ruling  the  author  appeals  to  Hermas, 
whom  he  quotes  on  the  subject.31  Even  the  sin  of  murder 
may  thus  be  forgiven.32  For  less  grievous  sins  forgiveness 
may  always  be  obtained,  provided  the  sinner  submits  to  the 
chastising  hand  of  God.33 

10°.  Marriage  among  Christians  he  holds  to  be  indissoluble, 
even  in  the  case  of  adultery.  This  he  proves  from  our  Lord's 
words  as  recorded  by  St.  Matthew.34 

11°.  In  his  eschatological  teaching  the  author  prepared  the 
way  for  Origen,  in  as  much  as  he  seems  to  hold  that  after 
the  last  judgment  even  the  wicked  shall  finally  be  led  to  re 
pentance  and  thus  be  reconciled  to  God.35 

Thrift,  it -may,  be  said  that  there  is  much  wheat  and  jome 
chaff  in  the  i^achingLofjCjement  His  love  of  ancient  philoso 
phy  carried  him  at  times  undoubtedly  too  far,  as,  for  instance, 
in  the  excessive  moral  value  he  attached  to  gnosis;  yet  per 
haps  his  worst  fault  lies  in  his  allegorical  interpretation  of 
Holy  Scripture.  It  is  true,  he  explicitly  teaches  that  the  Sacred 
Writings,  of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  are  divinely 
inspired;  but  in  his  exegesis  he  frequently  adopts  the  prin 
ciples  of  Philo,  and  hence  it  not  rarely  happens  that  in  his 
interpretation  sober  facts  fade  away  into  mere  symbols. 

B  —  ORIGEN  :  ALEXANDRIA  AND  CESAREA 
Notwithstanding  his  vast  learning,  Clement  of  Alexandria 

30  Ibid.  2,  2,  19,  4 ;  20,  I.  33  Strom.  4,  24. 

31  Strom.  2,  13.  34  Ibid.  2,  23,  145,  3 ;  146,  2,  3. 

32  Quis  Dives,  42.  35  Ibid.  7,  2 ;  6,  14. 


198  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

did  not  achieve  more  than  local  fame.  This  is  perhaps  largely 
accounted  for  by  the  greater  brilliancy  of  Origen,  his  pupil 
and  immediate  successor  in  the  direction  of  the  school.  Both 
men  undertook  practically  the  same  task,  in  as  much  as  their 
common  aim  was  to  place  the  traditional  teaching  of  the  Church 
on  a  scientific  basis;  but  whilst  Clement  ended  by  philoso 
phizing  Christianity,  Origen  succeeded  in  synthesizing  the 
ology.  He  wrote  the  first  Summa  Theologica. 

Origen  was  born  of  Christian  parents,  probably  at  Alex 
andria.  Whilst  still  a  mere  child,  he  was  carefully  instructed 
by  his  father,  the  martyr  Leonidas,  and  thereafter  at  an  early 
age  he  entered  the  school  of  Clement.  When  about  seventeen 
years  old,  he  lost  his  father,  who  was  martyred  for  the  faith, 
and  thereby  the  duty  of  providing  for  a  large  and  impoverished 
family  devolved  upon  him.  Yet  so  distinguished  was  he  for 
learning  and  holiness  that  Demetrius,  bishop  of  Alexandria, 
came  shortly  after  this  to  his  assistance  by  making  him  direc 
tor  of  the  catechetical  school.  For  a  number  of  years  he  dis 
charged  his  duty  with  great  success,  although  some  of  his 
views  were  not  acceptable  to  his  ecclesiastical  superior.  Whilst 
passing  through  Csesarea  on  his  journey  to  Athens,  whither 
he  had  been  called  to  confer  with  certain  heretics,  he  was 
ordained  priest  without  the  sanction  of  his  bishop.  This  was 
made  the  pretext  for  severing  his  connection  with  the  school. 
After  several  vain  attempts  on  his  part  to  bring  about  a  recon 
ciliation,  first  with  Demetrius  and  then  with  his  successor 
Heraclas,  Origen  permanently  established  himself  at  Csesarea, 
whither  most  of  his  pupils  followed  him.  He  died  in  254, 
after  having  borne  imprisonment  and  torture  for  the  faith. 

During  all  these  years,  first  at  Alexandria  and  then  at 
Caesarea,  Origen  was  indefatigably  active  as  a  writer.  Epi- 
phanius  estimates  his  literary  productions  at  six  thousand  vol 
umes.  Of  course,  by  volumes  he  understands  rolls,  volumina, 
or  tomoi,  several  of  which  would  be  required  to  make  a  fair 
sized  volume  as  we  take  the  term.  To  facilitate  this  enor 
mous  output,  a  rich  and  devoted  friend,  Ambrose  by  name, 
placed  at  his  disposal  a  numerous  staff  of  stenographers  and 
copyists,  who  took  down  his  lectures  and  then  copied  them 


ORIGEN:    ALEXANDRIA  AND  OESAREA       199 

for  distribution.  Most  of  these  writings,  including  the  cele 
brated  Hexapla  or  six-column  Bible,  have  perished.  Of  those 
that  have  come  down  to  us  his  two  treatises,  Against  Celsus 
and  On  First  Principles  or  Peri  Archon,  are  the  most 
famous.  It  is  this  latter  that  contains  his  system  of  theology. 
A  brief  summary  of  it  may  be  given  as  follows ;  we  must 
bear  in  mind,  however,  that  by  "  First  Principles  "  the  author 
understands  fundamental  doctrines  and  leading  articles  of  the 
faith. 

By  way  of  preface  the  author  states  that  the  source  and 
fountain  of  all  truth  is  none  other  than  the  teaching  of  Christ 
and  the  Apostles.     This  lives  on  in  the  Church,  and  therefore 
her  preaching  is  the  criterion  and  norm  of  truth.     However,  as  \ 
the  Apostles  gave  a  clear  exposition  of  those  truths  only  which  I 
they  deemed  necessary  for  all,  whilst  such  others  as  are  not  \ 
so  necessary  they  simply  stated  without  explaining  them,  there 
is  room  for  further  study  and  investigation  on  the  part  of 
those  who  are  capable  of  deriving  fruit  from  such  labors. 
And  this  same  plan  the  Church  also  follows,  teaching  that 
certain  doctrines  must  be  accepted,  whilst  others  are  still  open 
for  discussion. 

Then  follows  a  brief  summary  of  the  truths  that  are  of 
faith,  namely:  The  existence  of  God,  creator  of  all  things, 
who,  though  incomprehensible  in  the  perfection  of  His  being, 
may  yet  in  some  way  be  known  from  the  works  of  His  hands. 
The  divinity  of  the  Son,  His  incarnation,  virginal  birth,  His 
death  for  our  redemption,  His  resurrection  and  ascension  into 
heaven.  The  existence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  associated  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  who  is  the  inspirer  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament,  and  the  sanctifier  of  souls.  The  immortality  of 
the  soul,  man's  free  will,  future  reward  and  punishment  ac 
cording  to  each  one's  deeds.  The  existence  of  good  and  bad 
angels,  the  former  assisting  man  in  the  work  of  salvation 
and  the  latter  tempting  him  to  evil.  The  creation  of  the 
world,  its  beginning  in  time,  and  its  future  ruin.  The  inspira 
tion  of  Scripture,  and  its  having  both  a  literal  and  a  spiritual 
meaning. 

Questions  still  open  for  discussion  are  the  following:     Is 


200  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

the  Holy  Ghost  begotten  (originated?  created?)  or  not?  Is 
He  also  the  Son  of  God?  Does  the  soul  come  ex  traduce 
seminis?  Are  the  demons  fallen  angels?  What  was  there 
before  the  world  was  created?  And  what  shall  there  be  after 
it  has  ceased  to  exist?  When  were  the  angels  created?  Are 
God  and  spirits  without  a  body  ?  And  in  what  sense  ?  Have 
stars  souls  or  not? 

According  to  his  plan  of  work,  then,  it  is  the  authorized 
teaching  of  the  Church  on  which  his  theological  synthesis  is 
to  rest.  If,  in  obedience  to  the  precept,  "  Enlighten  yourself 
with  the  lamp  of  knowledge,"  a  doctrinal  compendium  is  to 
be  drawn  up,  rationally  designed  as  an  organic  whole,  here 
are  the  elements  which  must  be  knit  together  as  a  solid  founda 
tion.  Make  use  of  clear  and  indisputable  inference;  draw 
from  Holy  Scripture  whatever  can  be  found  there  or  deduced 
from  it;  consult  the  certain  teaching  of  the  living  Church;  and 
then  from  all  these  various  sources  form  one  single  body  of 
doctrine. 

This  is  truly  an  excellent  plan,  none  more  serviceable  could 
well  be  devised;  but  in  the  hands  of  Origen,  owing  largely 
to  his  allegorical  interpretation  of  Scripture,  it  yielded  at 
times  rather  unsatisfactory  results.  In  passing  it  may  be 
noted,  that  this  doctrinal  compendium  was  not  intended  for 
simple  believers,  but  for  scholars  who  were  familiar  with  the 
speculations  of  the  Gnostics  and  non-Christian  philosophers. 
It  was  meant  to  be  an  antidote  against  the  various  errors 
of  the  day,  which  threatened  to  lead  astray  some  of  the  more 
studious  among  the  flock  of  Christ. 

The  body  of  the  work  is  divided  into  four  books.  In  the 
first  book  the  author  treats  of  God,  His  oneness  and  spiritu 
ality,  of  the  Logos  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  of  the  angels. 
In  the  second  he  takes  up  the  study  of  the  world,  of  mankind, 
of  redemption  through  Christ,  of  the  end  of  creation  and  the 
last  things.  In  the  third  he  investigates  the  freedom  of  man's 
will,  the  struggle  between  good  and  evil,  the  beginning  of 
the  world  in  time  and  its  final  consummation.  In  the  fourth 
he  explains  his  views  on  inspiration  and  exegesis.  In  most 
instances  particular  articles  of  the  faith  are  first  briefly  stated, 


ORIGEN :     ALEXANDRIA  AND  OESAREA       201 

then  philosophically  examined,  and  finally  proved  by  argu 
ments  drawn  chiefly  from  Holy  Scripture. 

The  development  may  be  sketched  in  a  few  lines.  God  is 
essentially  one,  unchangeable,  and  good.  Because  of  His 
goodness,  He  must  reveal  and  communicate  Himself;  because 
of  His  unchangeableness,  He  must  reveal  and  communicate 
Himself  from  all  eternity;  because  of  His  essential  oneness, 
He  can  directly  do  neither  the  one  nor  the  other :  therefore 
He  needs  a  minister  of  creation  and  revelation.  This  min 
ister  is  the  Word,  begotten  of  the  substance  of  the  Father, 
coeternal  and  consubstantial  with  Him.  Being  consubstan- 
tial  with  the  Father,  the  Word  is  true  God;  but  being  also 
capable  of  coming  into  direct  contact  with  the  relative  and 
the  manifold,  He  is  in  some  way  inferior  to  the  Father.  He 
is  true  God,  but  not  the  God. 

The  Holy  Ghost  is  thus  obviously  outside  the  scope  of  the 
author's  reasoning,  but  forced  by  Holy  Scripture  and  the 
teaching  of  the  Church  he  brings  Him  into  the  exposition  of 
his  system,  associating  Him  with  the  Father  and  the  Son  in 
one  trinity  of  divine  persons.  Apparently,  however,  this 
Trinity  corresponds  but  imperfectly  with  the  true  Christian 
concept  of  the  mystery.  All  three  persons  are  indeed  said  to 
be  truly  divine,  but  at  the  same  time  they  are  represented  as 
if  they  were  unequal  in  perfection,  and  are  certainly  con 
ceived  to  be  dissimilar  in  their  sphere  of  action.  "  God  the 
Father,  holding  all  things  together,  reaches  to  each  of  the 
things  that  are,  imparting  being  to  each  from  His  own;  for 
He  is  absolutely.  Compared  with  the  Father  the  Son  is  less, 
reaching  to  rational  things  only,  for  He  is  second  to  the 
Father.  And  the  Holy  Ghost  again  is  inferior,  extending 
His  operation  to  the  saints  only.  So  that  in  this  respect  the 
power  of  the  Father  is  greater,  in  comparison  with  the  Son 
and  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  the  power  of  the  Son  more,  in  com 
parison  with  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  again  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  more  exceeding,  in  comparison  with  all  other  holy 
beings."  36 

Again,  because  God  is  essentially  good  and  at  the  same  time 

86  De  Princ.  i,  3,  5. 


202  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

essentially  unchangeable,  and  omnipotent  from  all  eternity, 
hence  eternal  creation  must  be  admitted.  But  as-  matter  can 
not  be  eternal,  it  follows  that  spiritual  beings  were  created 
first.  They  were  endowed  with  freedom  of  choice,  but  abused 
it  almost  immediately  and  fell  into  sin.  Then  the  material 
world  was  created,  in  order  to  subject  the  fallen  spirits  to  a 
purifying  discipline.  They  were  then  imprisoned  in  bodies, 
more  or  less  gross  in  proportion  to  the  gravity  of  their  sin. 
Thus  the  bodies  of  angels  are  ethereal,  those  of  men  simply 
material,  whilst  the  bodies  of  demons  are  "  grotesque  and 
horrible." 

To  assist  men  in  their  temptations  and  struggles,  to  which 
this  purifying  discipline  gives  rise,  the  Word  sent  them 
Prophets  in  the  days  of  old,  and  finally  Himself  assumed 
human  nature,  perfect  in  body  and  pure  in  soul,  and  through 
His  sufferings  and  death  wrought  the  redemption  of  all.  This 
redemption,  however,  although  it  is  truly  a  payment  of  our 
debt  and  an  emancipation  from  the  power  of  Satan,  does  not 
primarily  effect  an  elevation  of  our  nature  to  a  divine  sphere; 
it  removes  obstacles,  strengthens  by  example,  and  enlightens 
by  the  infusion  of  a  higher  knowledge. 

The  end  of  all  things  implies  a  universal  restoration,  an 
apokatastasis,  when  all  reasonable  beings,  having  repented 
of  their  faults  under  the  chastising  hand  of  God,  shall  be 
reconciled  to  their  Maker.  Yet  as  they  still  remain  free,  it 
is  possible  that  they  may  fall  again,  and  thus  be  forced  to 
begin  once  more  the  cycle  of  purification. 

Finally,  Holy  Scripture,  whence  our  knowledge  of  revealed 
truths  is  chiefly  drawn,  has  a  triple  sense:  somatic,  psychic, 
and  pneumatic.  The  first  of  these  is  the  literal  and  historical 
meaning  of  the  text,  intended  for  the  simple.  The  second  is 
spiritual,  and  is  meant  for  those  who  have  already  somewhat 
advanced  in  the  appreciation  and  understanding  of  divine 
truths.  The  third  is  mystic,  and  is  for  the  perfect.  There 
are  many  passages  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  also  some  in 
the  New,  that  have  no  literal  meaning;  they  must  be  inter 
preted  in  a  spiritual  sense.  Hence  the  allegorical  interpre 
tation  of  Scripture  is  not  only  justified,  but  becomes  a  matter 


ORIGEN :     ALEXANDRIA  AND  CESAREA       203 

of  necessity.  In  fact,  Holy  Scripture,  like  all  visible  crea 
tion,  is  but  symbol  of  the  invisible  things  of  God.  It  is  only 
the  spiritually  enlightened  who  can  interpret  it  aright. 

From  this  brief  outline  of  the  treatise  it  is  sufficiently  clear 
that  the  author's  intention  of  building  upon  the  solid  founda 
tion  of  Holy  Scripture  and  approved  tradition  was  not  alto 
gether  realized.  In  fact,  on  several  points  he  went  decidedly 
astray ;  and  one  is  not  surprised  that  his  bishop  on  account  of 
doctrines  here  set  forth,  as  is  probable,  should  have  removed 
him  from  his  post  of  head-master  in  the  catechetical  school 
of  Alexandria.  But  in  passing  judgment  on  him,  two  things 
must  be  borne  in  mind.  The  first  is,  as  already  stated  above, 
that  he  intended  his  treatise  as  a  counterpoise  to  the  teaching  of 
the  Gnostics,  trying  to  show  by  philosophical  argumentation 
the  unreasonableness  of  Dualism,  Emanationism,  and  Doce- 
tism ;  and  in  this  he  succeeded  admirably.  The  second  is  that 
he  sincerely  endeavored  to  safeguard  the  traditional  teaching 
of  the  Church,  and  as  a  consequence  wherever  he  simply  states 
doctrines  to  be  admitted  by  all,  he  is  usually  quite  orthodox. 
Only  where  he  explains  points  which  to  his  way  of  looking 
at  them  had  not  yet  been  determined  by  any  authorized  teach 
ing,  whether  of  Scripture  or  tradition,  does  he  allow  himself 
to  be  carried  to  extremes.  Hence  whilst  he  is  an  unsafe 
teacher,  he  is  still  a  reliable  witness. 

Furthermore,  as  judged  by  what  he  says  in  his  other  extant 
works,  his  commentaries  on  Holy  Scripture,  his  treatise  Contra 
Celsum,  and  his  tractate  On  Prayer,  he  appears  in  a  somewhat 
different  light.  Thus,  commenting  on  Romans,  9,  5,  where 
the  Apostle  says  that  Christ  "  is  over  all  things,  God  blessed 
forever,"  he  speaks  of  the  Trinity  in  a  perfectly  orthodox 
sense.  "  Both  (the  Father  and  the  Son)  are  one  God,  because 
the  Son  has  no  other  source  of  divinity  than  the  Father;  but, 
as  Wisdom  says,  the  Son  is  a  most  pure  emanation  of  the  one 
paternal  fountain.  Therefore  Christ  is  over  all  things  God. 
But  He  who  is  over  all  things,  has  no  one  over  Himself. 
For  He  is  not  below  the  Father,  but  of  the  Father.  And  this 
very  same  has  the  Wisdom  of  God  given  us  to  understand  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  when  it  says :  '  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  hath 


204  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

filled  the  whole  world,  and  that  which  containeth  all  things 
hath  knowledge  of  the  voice/  If,  therefore,  the  Son  is  called 
God  over  all,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  contain  all,  and  the 
Father  is  He  of  whom  all  have  their  being,  it  is  shown  to 
evidence  that  the  nature  of  the  Trinity  and  the  substance  is 
one,  and  this  is  over  all."  37 

Again,  in  a  fragment  of  his  commentary  on  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  he  says  that  the  Son  is  begotten  of  the  substance 
of  the  Father,  that  He  is  homoousios  with  the  Father,  that 
there  was  never  an  instant  when  He  was  not  the  Son.38  In 
all  this  the  author  clearly  anticipates  the  definition  of  Nicsea. 

In  Christ  he  clearly  distinguishes  between  the  two  natures, 
the  divine  and  the  human.  "  In  the  first  place  it  behooves 
us  to  know,  that  in  Christ  the  nature  of  His  divinity,  by  rea 
son  of  which  He  is  the  only-begotten  Son  of  the  Father,  is 
one  thing,  and  another  is  His  human  nature,  which  He  as 
sumed  in  these  latter  times  according  to  the  divine  dispensa 
tion."  39  Yet,  though  the  two  natures  are  distinct,  they  are 
not  separate,  but  are  so  intimately  conjoined  in  the  unity  of 
person,  that  the  properties  of  the  one  can  in  the  concrete  be 
predicated  of  the  other.  Hence  it  is  that  the  human  nature, 
as  united  to  the  divinity,  "  is  justly  called  the  Son  and  the 
Power  of  God,  Christ  and  the  Wisdom  of  God ;  and  again  the 
Son  of  God,  through  whom  all  things  were  created,  is  styled 
Jesus  Christ  and  the  Son  of  man.  For  the  Son  of  God  also 
is  said  to  have  died,  in  that  nature,  of  course,  which  was 
capable  of  being  affected  by  death;  and  He  is  called  the  Son 
of  man,  who,  according  to  the  teaching  of  faith,  shall  come 
with  the  holy  angels  in  the  glory  of  the  Father.  And  for  this 
reason,  throughout  the  whole  Scripture,  the  divine  nature  is 
designated  by  terms  applicable  to  human  beings,  and  the  human 
nature  is  honored  with  divine  appellations." 40  Thus  the 
author  gives  a  perfectly  correct  application  of  the  communi- 
catio  idiomatum,  which  is  based  upon  the  hypostatic  union. 

The  object  of  Christ's  coming  into  the  world  was  the  re 
demption  of  mankind.  "  For  the  people  did  this  man  die, 

87  In  Rom.  7,  13.  39  De  Princ.  i,  2,  I. 

38  P.  G.  14,  1308,  1307.  *>Ibid.   i,  2,   10. 


ORIGEN :    ALEXANDRIA  AND  OESAREA       205 

who  was  purer  than  all  living  beings;  He  bore  our  sins  and 
infirmities,  as  He  was  able  to  pay  for  and  to  destroy  and  to 
blot  out  all  the  sins  of  the  whole  world  taken  upon  Himself, 
because  He  had  done  no  inquity,  nor  was  deceit  found  in  His 
mouth,  nor  did  He  know  sin."  41  Hence  Christ's  satisfaction 
was  vicarious.  It  was  also  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  the  Saviour 
of  the  world  offering  Himself  as  a  victim  of  propitiation  to 
His  Father.42  Then,  along  with  this  perfectly  orthodox  view, 
the  author  develops  the  idea  of  a  ransom  being  paid  to  the 
evil  one,  so  that  we  might  be  justly  freed  from  the  slavery 
of  Satan.43  The  redemption  is  universal  in  the  widest  sense 
of  the  term,  extending  not  only  to  the  whole  human  race, 
but  likewise  to  all  other  reasonable  beings.44 

Freed  from  sin  by  the  redemption  thus  wrought,  men  must 
work  out  their  salvation  by  making  a  good  use  of  their  free 
will  and  the  graces  bestowed  upon  them  by  God.  In  this 
they  are  assisted  by  the  Church  of  Christ.  The  author's 
ecclesiology  appears  to  be  quite  orthodox.  The  Church,  he 
says,  is  one  all  over  the  world,  and  no  person  is  a  true  Chris 
tian  unless  he  belongs  to  the  Church  which  takes  its  name 
from  Christ.45  Out  of  the  Church  there  is  no  salvation,  and 
if  any  one  separates  himself  from  her  communion,  he  is  guilty 
of  his  own  destruction.46  Christ  built  His  Church  upon  Peter, 
who  is  its  solid  foundation.47  The  faithful  are  under  the  juris 
diction  of  the  bishop,  who  is  assisted  by  priests  and  deacons.48 

Of  baptism  he  says  that  it  washes  away  all  sins,  and  as  little 
children  are  also  sinners,  the  Church,  following  Apostolic  tra 
dition,  teaches  that  they  should  be  baptized.49  The  baptism  of 
water  may,  however,  be  supplied  by  martyrdom,  which  is  the 
baptism  of  blood.50 

The  author  touches  the  question  of  penance  in  several  dif 
ferent  places,  but  his  position  is  not  altogether  clear.  In  his 
treatise  Contra  Celsum,  he  indicates  the  general  rule  followed 

41  In  Joan.  28,  18  (160).  47  In  Exod.  5,  4. 

42  In  Rom.  3,  8.  48  De  Orat.  28,  4 ;  cfr.  Contr.  Cels. 

43  In  Matt.   16,   18.  3,  51. 

44  In  Joan,  i,  40.  49  In  Rom.  5,  9;  In  Joan.  6,  17. 

45  Contr.  Celsum,  8,  16.  80  Exhort,  ad  Mart.  30,  34,  So. 

46  In  Jesu  Nave,  Horn.  3,  5. 


206  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

by  the  Christians  in  regard  to  those  who  sin  grievously. 
"  Those,"  he  says,  "  who  fall  into  sin,  and  especially  such 
as  give  themselves  up  to  licentiousness,  the  Christians  separate 
from  their  communion.  .  .  .  They  mourn  as  lost  and  dead 
to  God  those  who  have  fallen  through  lust  or  who  have  com 
mitted  any  other  crime;  and  they  regard  them  as  having  been 
raised  from  the  dead,  when  they  have  so  changed  their  ways 
that  they  deserve  readmission.  However,  they  are  admitted 
less  readily  than  those  who  are  received  for  the  first  time; 
and  because  they  have  fallen  after  pledging  their  fidelity  to  the 
principles  of  our  religion,  they  are  forbidden  to  hold  any 
place  of  honor  and  superiority  in  the  said  Church  of  God."  51 

In  another  place  he  enumerates  several  kinds  of  penance; 
one  of  which,  he  says,  is  more  laborious  than  the  rest,  because 
it  includes  the  confession  of  sins  that  have  been  committed.52 
And  this  confession  is  to  be  made  to  the  priests  of  the  Church, 
who,  in  imitation  of  their  Master,  impart  to  the  people  the 
forgiveness  of  their  sins.53  To  the  priests  it  also  belongs  to 
determine  whether  public  penance  should  be  performed  for 
the  sins  confessed  to  them.54  However,  although  the  min 
istry  of  forgiveness  belongs  to  all  the  priests,  it  does  so  more 
particularly  to  the  bishop.55  Sins  that  must  be  confessed  are 
divided  into  mortal  faults  and  mortal  crimes.  For  the  former 
one  can  always  obtain  pardon ;  as  regards  the  latter,  the  author 
is  apparently  not  consistent  in  his  views.  In  one  place  he 
expresses  his  astonishment  that  priests  should  presume  to 
pardon  any  of  them,  that  is,  apostasy,  homicide,  and  adultery.56 
In  another  he  states  that  deliberate  and  full  apostasy  is  un 
pardonable.57  In  a  third  he  holds  that  pardon  may  be  granted 
once.58  And  finally  in  a  fourth  place  he  implies  that  they 
may  be  pardoned  repeatedly.59 

Anent  this  apparent  contradiction,  Tixeront  gives  it  as  his 
opinion  that  "  Origen,  as  well  as  Tertullian,  regarded  the 

51  Cont.  Cels.  3,  51.  ™  Ibid.  28. 

52  In  Levit.  Horn.  2,  4.  57  In  Matt.  114. 

53  In  Levit.  5,  3 ;  cf  r.  Ibid.  3,  4.  58  In  Levit.  15,  2. 

54  In  Num.  Horn.  10,  i.  59  Ibid.  11,  2. 

55  In  Levit.  15,  2;  cfr.  De  Orat.  28. 


ORIGEN :    ALEXANDRIA  AND  OESAREA 


207 


crimina  mortalia  as  beyond  forgiveness :  but  he  has  been 
corrected  in  this  point,  as  in  many  others." 60  Practically 
the  same  view  is  taken  by  Rauschen,61  and  many  other  modern 
critics.  D'Ales,  on  the  other  hand,  and  perhaps  the  majority 
of  dogmatic  theologians  contend  that  the  contradiction  is  only 
apparent,  and  that,  "  when  Origen  speaks  of  unpardonable 
sins  in  his  De  Oratione,  he  does  not  imply  that  they  are 
unpardonable  in  se,  but  unpardonable  on  account  of  the  malice 
of  unrepentant  sinners  or  the  laxity  of  priests  who  fail  to 
dispose  them  to  penance."  62  All  things  considered,  this  ap 
pears  to  be  the  more  probable  view. 

Origen's  teaching  on  the  Eucharist  is  in  the  main  quite  satis 
factory.  He  speaks  of  the  consecrated  elements  as  containing 
the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  which,  he  says,  the  faithful 
receive  with  the  greatest  care  and  reverence,  lest  some  particles 
should  fall  to  the  ground;  and  if  this  were  to  happen  through 
their  own  fault,  he  adds,  they  would  be  guilty  indeed.  They 
do  not  take  so  much  care  in  preserving  the  word  of  God.63  In 
another  place  he  states  that  besides  this  common  understanding 
of  the  Eucharist,  one  may  also  take  a  spiritual  view  of  it,  ac 
cording  to  which  the  consecrated  elements  are  symbols  of  the 
teaching  of  Christ.64  He  also  holds  that  the  Eucharist  is  a 
true  sacrifice.  The  Christian  altar,  he  says,  is  not  flowing  with 
the  blood  of  animals,  but  is  consecrated  by  the  precious  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ.65  The  material  elements  are  consecrated  by 
the  "  prolatum  verbum,"  and  it  is  from  this  that  the  sanctifying 
power  of  the  Eucharist  is  derived.66 

In  his  references  to  matrimony,  the  author  stands  for  the 
indissolubility  of  the  marriage  bond,  proving  his  view  from 
the  teaching  of  Holy  Scripture.67  He  remarks,  however,  that 
some  "  Ecclesiae  rectores  "  have  occasionally  allowed  persons 
to  act  contrary  to  this  teaching :  but,  he  adds,  they  did  so  most 
likely  in  order  to  avoid  a  greater  evil.68  It  is  God  who  unites 

60  O.  c.  278.  65  In  Num.  Horn.  24,  i ;  In  Jesu 

61  Eucharist  and  Penance,  180  sq.      Nave,  2,  I ;  8,  6. 
62L'£dit  de  Calliste;   La  Theol-          e6  In  Matt,  n,  14. 

ogie  de  S.  Hippolyte,  44  sq.  67  Ibid.  14,  23. 

63  In  Exod.  Horn.  13,  3.  «8  Ibid. 

6*  Ibid.  13,  3,  5. 


208  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

husband  and  wife,  so  that  they  are  no  longer  two  but  one; 
and  because  it  is  God  who  unites  them,  therefore  the  union 
is  to  them  a  source  of  grace.69 

As  a  reason  for  the  baptism  of  little  children,  as  was  said 
above,  the  author  adduces  the  fact  that  they  too  are  sinners. 
This  would  seem  to  imply  his  belief  in  the  existence  of  original 
sin.  The  same  inference  may  be  drawn  from  several  other 
statements.  Thus  he  holds  that  the  soul  on  its  union  with 
the  body  contracts  a  moral  stain,  because  it  is  united  to  a  body 
of  sin.70  And  in  his  commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro 
mans  he  argues  that  as  Adam  begot  his  first  child  only  after 
he  had  committed  sin,  he  necessarily  transmitted  a  sin-stained 
body ;  and  as  all  men  were  contained  in  Adam  whilst  dwelling 
in  paradise,  so  were  they  all  with  him  and  in  him  expelled 
therefrom,  all  being  subject  to  the  consequences  of  that  first 
sin.71 

Many  other  points  of  orthodox  teaching  might  be  gathered 
from  the  author's  writings,  but  these  are  sufficient  for  our 
purpose.  It  is  indeed  easy  enough  to  draw  up  from  his  vari 
ous  works,  especially  from  his  De  Principiis,  a  long  list  of 
propositions  that  deserve  the  severest  censure,  as  was  actually 
done  some  three  hundred  years  after  his  death;  but  it  is  not 
less  easy  to  make  him  a  staunch  defender  of  orthodox  Chris 
tianity  as  it  existed  in  his  day.  He  unhesitatingly  accepted  the 
teaching  of  the  Church,  whether  it  was  drawn  from  oral  tra 
dition  or  from  the  written  word,  but  beyond  its  obvious  and 
literal  meaning,  which  he  had  no  intention  of  setting  aside,  he 
sought  for  a  higher  spiritual  sense,  which  would  give  him  a 
deeper  insight  into  the  mysteries  of  God.  In  this  his  alle 
gorizing  tendency  carried  him  at  times  too  far;  still  it  must 
not  be  forgotten  that  the  conclusions  thus  arrived  at  were  not 
meant  to  supplant  the  Church's  ordinary  teaching  as  it  was 
explained  to  the  simple.  Thus  when  he  says  that  the  Holy 
Eucharist  is  the  real  body  and  blood  of  the  Saviour,  he  under 
stands  and  accepts  the  proposition  in  its  literal  sense;  but  the 

69  Ibid.  14,  16.  71  In  Rom.  5,  9 ;  I,  i ;  cfr.  Contr. 

70  In  Levit  8,  3 ;  In  Luc.  Horn.  14.      Cels.  3,  62,  66. 


ORIGEN :    ALEXANDRIA  AND  C^SAREA       209 

reality  of  the  Saviour's  presence  is  to  him  at  the  same  time 
a  symbol  of  God's  loving  and  merciful  revelation  to  men,  and 
so  he  does  not  hesitate  to  speak  of  the  Eucharist  as  the  word 
of  God.  If  this  be  borne  in  mind,  most  of  Origen's  alleged 
aberrations,  at  least  in  matters  which  were  then  clearly  taught 
by  the  Church,  will  disappear. 


CHAPTER  XIII 
FROM  THE  DEATH  OF  ORIGEN  TO  THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICE  A 

Between  the  close  of  Origen's  troubled  and  brilliant  career 
and  the  opening  of  the  Council  of  Nicsea,  nearly  three-quarters 
of  a  century  later,  no  theologian  of  particular  eminence  ap 
peared  of  whom  we  have  any  record.  This  is  especially  true 
of  the  West.  Cyprian  died  in  258,  and  his  immediate  suc 
cessors  have  left  us  nothing  that  is  worthy  of  note.  There 
were  indeed  a  few  writers,  like  Arnobius,  Commodian,  Lac- 
tantius,  and  Victorinus  of  Pettau,  who  employed  their  literary 
talents  in  defense  of  the  faith  or  in  the  exposition  of  Christian 
doctrine,  but  they  added  nothing  to  what  had  already  been 
accomplished  by  those  who  went  before  them.  Arnobius  was 
a  recent  convert  and  apparently  but  poorly  instructed  in  the 
faith  which  he  tried  to  defend ;  Commodian,  probably  a  Jewish 
proselyte  before  his  conversion  to  Christianity,  was  a  poet, 
who  appealed  to  his  readers'  imagination  rather  than  to  their 
reason;  Lactantius,  the  Christian  Cicero,  was  more  skilful 
in  discomfiting  his  pagan  adversaries  than  in  enlightening  his 
fellow-believers;  whilst  Victorinus  of  Pettau  confined  himself 
almost  exclusively  to  Scriptural  exegesis,  and  of  his  many 
works  only  his  commentary  on  the  Apocalypse  has  come  down 
to  us.  Hence  about  them  nothing  need  be  said  in  the  History 
of  Dogmas. 

The  East  indeed  produced  some  men  of  note,  but  even  the 
best  of  them  can  hardly  be  compared  with  the  writers  of  the 
first  half  of  the  third  century.  Some  of  these  men,  as  Her- 
aclas,  Dionysius,  Theognastus,  Pierius,  and  Peter  of  Alex 
andria,  succeeded  Origen  in  the  direction  of  the  Alexandrian 
school,  and  likely  enough  they  were  quite  competent  as  teach 
ers;  but  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  the  few  fragments  of 
their  works  that  are  still  extant  give  no  indication  of  par- 

210 


FROM  ORIGEN  TO  NICEA  I  21 1 

ticular  ability.  Others,  like  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  Metho 
dius  of  Olympus,  and  Hieracas  of  Leontopolis,  were  constantly 
engaged  in  the  discharge  of  their  pastoral  duties  and  had  but 
little  opportunity  of  accomplishing  anything  noteworthy  along 
the  lines  of  literary  pursuits.  Still  in  what  remains  of  the 
works  of  these  various  writers,  there  are  some  points  worth 
gathering ;  especially  in  the  matter  of  Trinitarian  and  Christo- 
logical  teaching. 

We  may  begin  with  Dionysius,  who  from  the  head-master 
ship  of  the  catechetical  school  was  raised  to  the  episcopal  see 
of  Alexandria.  He  is  best  known  to  us  from  his  correspond 
ence  with  his  namesake,  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  In  a  letter 
written  to  refute  the  error  of  Sabellius,  he  used  expressions 
which  seemed  to  deny  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Son  with 
the  Father.  On  account  of  this  he  was  denounced  to  the 
Pope,  and  by  him  was  called  upon  to  clear  himself  of  the 
charge  of  heterodox  teaching.  The  Pope's  letter  itself  con 
tains  a  point  worth  noticing.  After  condemning  those  who 
identify  the  person  of  the  Son  with  that  of  the  Father,  as 
Sabellius  did,  and  those  others  who  would  make  the  Son  a 
creature,  as  was  afterwards  done  by  Arius,  he  sets  forth  the 
teaching  of  the  Church  in  the  following  terms :  "  We  must 
neither  divide  the  wonderful  and  divine  Monad  into  three 
divinities,  nor  destroy  the  dignity  and  exceeding  greatness  of 
the  Lord  by  considering  Him  a  creature:  but  we  must  have 
faith  in  God  the  Father  Almighty,  and  in  Christ  Jesus  His 
Son,  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  in  the  union  of  the  Word 
with  the  God  of  the  universe,  '  for  the  Father  and  I/  He  says, 
'  are  but  one,  and  I  am  in  the  Father  and  the  Father  is  in  me/ 
Thus  both  the  Trinity  and  the  holy  preaching  of  the  Mon 
archy  will  be  safeguarded."1  This  is  truly  a  precious  relic 
of  third-century  theology,  representing  as  it  does  the  faith 
of  the  West  in  the  Trinity  and  the  divine  sonship,  and  being 
at  the  same  time  a  precise  statement  of  the  faith  by  the  Head 
of  the  Church. 

The  answer  of  the  bishop  of  Alexandria  is  also  quite  satis- 

1  Athanasius,  De  Decret.  Nic.  Syti.   15,  23. 


212  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

factory.  After  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  examples  and 
comparisons  may  be  strained  beyond  the  limits  of  truth,  and 
thus  be  made  to  imply  what  was  never  intended  by  the  author, 
he  says :  "  There  never  was  a  time  when  God  was  not 
Father.  .  .  .  And  as  the  Son  is  the  Splendor  of  Eternal  Light, 
so  He  Himself  also  is  strictly  eternal.  As  the  word  in  the 
mind  is  distinct  from  the  mind,  and  yet  one  with  it,  the  one 
being  in  the  other;  so  too  the  Father  and  the  Son,  although 
distinct,  are  one."  2  And  to  the  charge  that  he  had  not  used 
the  term  homoousios,  consubstantial,  when  speaking  of  the 
Son,  he  replies,  that  the  omission  resulted  not  from  his  denying 
the  applicability  of  the  term  to  the  Son,  but  simply  from  his 
not  having  found  it  in  Holy  Scripture.3  Then  the  other 
charge,  that  he  makes  the  three  hypostases  or  persons  so  many 
portions  of  the  Godhead,  he  answers  by  saying :  "  Three 
there  are  though  they  (the  adversaries)  like  it  not,  or  they 
must  utterly  destroy  the  Divine  Trinity.  We  extend  the 
Monad  indivisibly  into  the  Triad,  and  conversely  gather  to 
gether  the  Triad  without  diminution  into  the  Monad." 4 
This  perfectly  satisfied  the  Pope,  because  it  was  thoroughly 
orthodox. 

The  same  doctrine  is  found  in  the  few  fragments  of  the 
work  of  Theognastus,  preserved  by  St.  Athanasius.  Although 
there  are  some  traces  of  Subordinationism,  yet  when  speaking 
of  the  generation  of  the  Son,  the  author  says  that  the  Son 
is  born  of  the  substance  of  the  Father,  an  expression  that  found 
its  way  into  the  Nicene  Creed.  He  also  insists  strongly  on 
the  Son's  full  and  perfect  likeness  in  essence  to  the  Father.5 

St.  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  is  even  more  explicit.  In  his 
Exposition  of  the  Faith  he  has  expressions  like  the  following : 
"  One  God,  Father  of  the  Living  Word  .  .  .  perfect  pro 
genitor  of  a  perfect  offspring,  Father  of  the  only-begotten 
Son.  One  Lord,  God  of  God,  figure  and  image  of  the  God 
head,  the  Word,  creator  of  all  things;  true  Son  of  true 
God.  And  one  Holy  Spirit,  who  has  His  substance  from 
God,  and  who  through  the  son  appeared  to  men;  the  perfect 

2  Id.  De  Sent.  Dionys.  15,  23.  *  Ibid.  17. 

3  Ibid.  18.  6  Id.  De  Decret.  Nic.  Syn.  25. 


FROM  ORIGEN  TO  NIC^A  I  213 

image  of  the  Son,  the  life  and  cause  of  all  life.  A  perfect 
trinity,  not  divided  nor  separated  in  glory  and  eternity  and 
rule.  Nor  is  there  anything  created  or  in  servitude  in  the 
Trinity;  nor  anything  superinduced,  as  if  first  not  there  and 
then  added  thereto.  And  thus  neither  was  the  Son  ever  want 
ing  to  the  Father,  nor  the  Spirit  to  the  Son ;  but  without  varia 
tion  and  without  change,  the  same  Trinity  ever  abideth."  6 
Bearing  in  mind  that  Gregory  was  a  disciple  and  ardent  ad 
mirer  of  Origen,  the  latter's  teaching  on  the  Trinity  may 
perhaps  appear  in  a  somewhat  new  light ;  for  it  is  hardly  con 
ceivable  that  the  devoted  disciple  should  be  so  correct,  if  the 
master  had  gone  altogether  astray. 

St.  Peter  of  Alexandria  is  noted  chiefly  for  his  opposition  to 
Origen.  He  severely  censures  the  latter's  teaching  on  the 
preexistence  of  souls,  and  on  their  union  with  a  body  in  con 
sequence  of  sin.  He  also  finds  fault  with  Origen's  doctrine 
on  the  resurrection,  as  not  sufficiently  safeguarding  the  iden 
tity  of  the  risen  body  with  that  which  each  one  had  during 
life.  These  strictures  are  just  enough  if  no  allowance  be  made 
for  Origen's  philosophical  speculations,  as  was  pointed  out  in 
the  preceding  chapter.  Christ,  according  to  Peter's  teach 
ing,  was  God  by  nature,  and  became  man  by  nature.  In 
the  Incarnation  the  Word  became  true  man,  but  He  did  not 
lay  aside  His  divinity.7 

St.  Methodius  of  Olympus  finds  the  same  fault  with  Ori 
gen.  Man  was  eternally  with  God,  he  says,  as  a  possible 
being;  as  something  that  might  be  called  into  existence,  but 
he  was  wholly  created  in  time.8  Man  is  a  sort  of  microcosm, 
summing  up  the  whole  world  in  himself.9  He  was  endowed 
by  His  Creator  with  freedom  and  immortality,  and  made  to 
the  likeness  of  God.10  Adam  fell,  and  as  a  consequence  we 
are  all  inclined  to  sin.  "  When  man  was  deceived  by  the 
devil,  he  violated  the  commandment  of  God,  and  thenceforth 
sin,  propagated  by  this  contumacy,  took  up  its  abode  in 
him.  .  .  .  For  deprived  of  the  divine  gifts  and  utterly  pros- 

6  P.  G.  10,  983-988.  9  De  Res.  2,  10,  2. 

7Fragm.  P.  G.  18,  512,  521,  5OQ-  10  Ibid.  I,  38,  3J  35,  2. 

8De  Lib.  Arbitr.  22,  9-11. 


214  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

trated,  we  have  become  a  prey  to  concupiscence,  which  the 
cunning  serpent  and  shrewd  deceiver  excited  in  us."  "  To 
remedy  the  evil  thus  introduced  into  the  world,  the  Word 
of  God  became  incarnate,  being  at  the  same  time  true  God 
and  true  man.12  He  was  the  second  Adam,  the  representa 
tive  of  the  human  race,  who  laid  down  his  life  for  the  sins 
of  the  world.13  The  fruit  of  His  redemption  is  treasured  up 
in  the  Church,  His  spouse  and  the  mother  of  His  children.14 
These  children  are  born  to  Him  in  baptism,  which  makes  the 
recipients  so  many  other  Christs.15 

Besides  these  fragments,  there  is  an  anonymous  treatise 
belonging  to  this  period,  entitled,  On  the  Right  Faith,  which 
was  formerly  ascribed  to  Origen.  It  was  directed  against 
the  Marcian  and  Valentinian  heresies,  but  incidentally  gives 
also  an  exposition  of  Catholic  doctrines.  The  author,  who 
calls  himself  Adamantius,  professes  his  faith  in  the  eternal 
and  consubstantial  Word,  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  is  also 
eternal.16  The  Word,  he  says,  is  Son  of  God  by  nature,  whilst 
men  are  children  of  God  only  by  adoption.17  He  remained 
truly  God  in  the  Incarnation,  but  also  truly  assumed  flesh  from 
the  Virgin  Mary.18  The  Catholic  Church,  he  states  in  an 
other  place,  is  the  sole  depository  of  truth,  and  those  who  leave 
her  communion  necessarily  fall  into  error.  True  Christians 
are  called  Catholics  because  they  are  spread  all  over  the 
world.19  There  is  also  a  reference  to  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
which  the  author  calls  the  communion  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ.20  Like  St.  Irenseus  before  him,  he  adduces  the 
Real  Presence  as  an  argument  against  the  Valentinians,  who 
held  that  matter  was  essentially  evil. 

A  few  other  points  of  interest  might  be  gathered  from  the 
scattered  fragments  belonging  to  this  period,  but  these  will 
suffice  for  our  purpose.  They  are  only  few  in  number,  but 

n  Epiphan.  Adv.  Haeres.  64,  60 ;  15  Ibid.  8,  6,  8 ;  8,  9,  8. 

cf  r.  De  Lib.  Arb.  17,  4,  5.  16  De  Recta  Fide,  I,  2. 

12  Banquet,  I,  5 ;  8,  7 ;  3,  5.  "  Ibid.  3,  9. 

is  Ibid.  3,  3,  4,  5,  8;  De  Res.  3,  18  Ibid.  5,  39 ;  4,  15  ;  5,  7. 

23,  n.  19Ibid.  5,  28;  i,  8, 

14  Banquet,  3,  8.  20  Ibid.  2,  20. 


FROM  ORIGEN  TO  NIOEA  I  215 

of  inestimable  value.  They  present  to  us  in  the  clearest  pos 
sible  light  the  faith  of  both  East  and  West  on  two  points  of 
doctrine  which  a  quarter  of  a  century  later  were  to  stir  the 
Christian  world  to  its  very  depths.  Their  preservation  appears 
truly  providential. 

As  the  present  chapter  concludes  our  review  of  Antenicene 
theology,  it  seems  in  place  here  to  say  a  word  about  doctrinal 
development  as  referred  to  this  particular  period  of  time. 
Was  there  any  real  progress  in  the  Church's  teaching  since  the 
days  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers?  Was  there  anything  like 
development  in  her  theology?  Or  did  she  simply  hand  down 
from  generation  to  generation  what  she  had  received  from  the 
Apostles  and  their  immediate  successors  in  the  days  of  old? 

Both  of  these  questions  may  be  answered  in  the  affirmative, 
but  each  under  a  different  aspect.  The  Church  simply  handed 
down  what  she  had  received  in  so  far  as  the  contents  of  her 
doctrines  came  in  question :  the  deposit  of  faith  remained  ever 
the  same.  Nothing  is  found  in  the  orthodox  writers  of  the 
third  century  that  was  not  in  some  way  implied  or  referred 
to  by  the  men  who  wrote  at  the  beginning  of  the  second. 
Under  this  aspect  there  was  no  development.  But  the  matter 
looks  quite  different  when  the  explicit  presentation  and  pre 
cise  exposition  of  particular  doctrines  are  considered.  Then 
there  is  noticeable  a  progress  and  development  that  becomes 
ever  more  striking  as  time  passes  on.  This  is  especially  true 
in  reference  to  the  Blessed  Trinity,  the  true  Godhead  of  the 
Son,  the  unity  of  person  and  duality  of  natures  in  Christ,  the 
constitution  of  the  Church  and  her  importance  in  the  economy 
of  salvation,  the  real  presence  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  in 
the  Eucharist,  the  sacrificial  character  of  the  Eucharistic  rite, 
and  the  nature  of  the  Church's  intervention  in  the  remission 
of  post-baptismal  sins. 

To  realize  this,  one  need  but  compare  the  somewhat  vague 
association  of  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  with  the  Father, 
as  found  in  sub- Apostolic  writers,  with  the  precise  Trinitarian 
formula  worked  out  by  Tertullian  and  freely  used  by  Dionysius 
of  Rome  and  his  namesake  of  Alexandria.  Or  the  indefinite 
expression  Son  of  God,  as  implying  the  divinity  of  Christ, 


2i6  THE  FIRST  THREE  CENTURIES 

with  the  explicit  declaration  of  the  Son's  consubstantiality 
made  by  these  same  authors.  Or,  again,  the  simple  statement 
of  earlier  writers  that  the  Word  became  man  with  the  definite 
teaching  of  third-century  authors  that  the  Word  Incarnate  is 
one  person  subsisting  in  two  natures.  And  so  all  along  the 
various  lines  of  theological  thought  as  indicated  above.  Noth 
ing  was  added,  nothing  was  taken  away,  but  what  was  ever 
present  gradually  crystallized  into  clearer  concepts  and  ex 
panded  into  fuller  statements.  There  was  indeed  no  change, 
but  there  was  growth. 

And  the  same  is  more  or  less  true  of  other  points  of  doc 
trine.  The  veneration  of  martyrs,  sacrifice  and  prayers  for 
the  dead,  the  Divine  Motherhood  of  the  Virgin,  all  at  first 
referred  to  in  a  somewhat  casual  way,  were  by  the  end  of 
the  third  century  universally  accepted  as  evidently  contained  in 
the  authorized  teaching  of  the  Church.  By  that  time  also  the 
New  Testament  canon  was  practically  fixed,  and  the  inspiration 
of  Holy  Scripture  was  placed  beyond  dispute. 

There  appears  a  similar  progress  in  the  manifest  recogni 
tion  of  the  Primacy  of  Rome.  Merely  implied  in  the  Prima 
Clementis,  and  more  or  less  incidentally  referred  to  in  the 
letter  of  Ignatius  to  the  Romans,  the  fact  of  the  Primacy  is 
definitely  stated  by  Irenseus  and  Cyprian,  and  the  rights  in 
volved  therein  are  unhesitatingly  exercised  by  successive  Popes. 
The  position  taken  by  Victor  in  the  paschal  dispute,  by  Cal- 
listus  in  the  matter  of  penance,  by  Stephen  in  the  baptismal 
controversy,  and  by  Dionysius  in  reference  to  his  namesake 
of  Alexandria,  shows  how  thoroughly  these  Pontiffs  were 
convinced  that  as  successors  of  St.  Peter  they  had  at  once 
the  right  and  the  duty  to  feed  the  whole  flock  of  Christ.  And 
although  at  times,  in  the  heat  of  controversy,  the  Pope's  au 
thority  was  apparently  disregarded  by  individuals,  nevertheless 
the  Christian  world  as  a  whole  was  always  ready  to  acknowl 
edge  the  universal  jurisdiction  of  the  incumbent  of  the  Roman 
see.  For  that  see  was  to  them  the  see  of  Peter,  and  the 
Pope  was  admitted  to  be  Peter's  successor.  Hence  the  well 
attested  historical  fact,  that  not  only  orthodox  bishops  and 
teachers,  but  heresiarchs  as  well,  ever  sought  to  strengthen 


FROM  ORIGEN  TO  NIOEA  I  217 

their  position  by  endeavoring  to  obtain  the  support  of  Rome. 
They  well  knew  that  communion  with  Rome  was  universally 
regarded  as  communion  with  the  Church  of  Christ.  There 
was  as  yet  little  or  no  theorizing  about  the  Pope's  Primacy, 
but  as  a  mere  fact  that  Primacy  was  well  understood  and 
readily  admitted. 

And  thus  without  the  intervention  of  general  councils, 
without  any  formal  definition  of  the  faith  issued  by  the  Head 
of  the  Church,  the  ordinary  magisterium,  guided  by  the  Spirit 
of  truth  and  watched  over  by  the  Vicar  of  Christ,  not  only 
warded  off  all  dangers  from  the  preaching  of  God's  word, 
but  also  directed  orthodox  teaching  with  a  firm  hand  along 
the  ever  lengthening  lines  of  legitimate  doctrinal  development. 
In  the  following  periods  we  shall  see  this  development  proceed 
more  rapidly,  owing  to  the  rise  of  wide-spread  heresies  and 
the  consequent  decisive  action  of  general  councils;  but  the 
final  outcome  will  ever  be  the  same. 


CHAPTER  XIV 
RISE  OF  THE  ARIAN  HERESY  AND  THE  COUNCIL  OF 


During  a  period  of  more  than  forty  years,  from  260,  when 
the  Valerian  persecution  ended,  to  302,  when  that  of  Diocletian 
began,  the  Church  enjoyed  not  only  peace  but  practically  full 
liberty  to  preach  the  Gospel  throughout  the  vast  extent  of  the 
Roman  Empire.  As  a  result  the  number  of  Christians  in 
creased  rapidly,  and  the  development  of  Church  organization 
went  on  apace.  Harnack  estimates  that  at  the  beginning  of 
the  fourth  century  there  were  about  four  million  believers, 
who  were  presided  over  by  something  like  fifteen  hundred 
bishops.  This,  of  course,  is  only  an  estimate,  and  the  actual 
number  of  Christians  was  probably  much  larger.  Asia  Minor, 
Armenia,  Syria,  Palestine,  Northern  Egypt,  Proconsular 
Africa  and  Numidia,  Central  and  Lower  Italy,  Southern  Gaul 
and  some  parts  of  Spain,  were  almost  entirely  Christian.  Be 
lievers  in  the  Gospel  message  were  much  more  numerous  in 
cities  than  in  the  country  districts,  and  many  of  them  belonged 
to  the  highest  classes  of  society. 

This  freedom  of  religious  practice  and  worship  led  naturally 
to  a  more  perfect  organization  of  Church  government.  From 
the  earliest  times  local  churches  had  been  governed  by  a  hier 
archy  which  consisted  of  three  orders,  bishops,  priests,  and 
deacons,  to  which  towards  the  middle  of  the  third  century 
subdeacons  and  clerics  in  the  four  minor  orders  were  added. 
This  arrangement  remained  unchanged,  but  these  local 
churches  were  gradually  drawn  more  closely  together  as  free 

1  Cfr.  Newman,  The  Arians  of  the  Hefele,  History  of  the  Councils, 
Fourth  Century;  Rogala,  Die  An-  I,  231-449,  Engl.  Trans.  2nd  Edit.; 
faenge  des  Arianishen  Streites;  Hergenro  ether,  Kirchengeschichte, 
Tixeront,  H.  D.  II,  29-36  ;  Schwane,  I,  348-384;  Marion,  Histoire  de 
H.  D.  I,  207-219,  II,  134-232;  1'Eglise,  I,  395-424. 

218 


THE  ARIAN  HERESY  219 

communication  became  established.  Up  to  the  fourth  cen 
tury  they  were  usually  grouped  around  their  respective  mother- 
churches,  from  which  they  had  received  the  faith;  but  later 
on,  first  in  the  East  and  then  also  in  the  West,  there  was  a 
division  into  provinces,  each  being  subject  to  a  metropolitan, 
who  exercised  a  certain  amount  of  directive  authority  over 
his  suffragan  bishops.  In  the  East  he  usually  had  his  resi 
dence  in  the  capital  city  of  the  corresponding  political  division, 
whilst  in  the  West  this  was  rarely  the  case.  Finally,  all  these 
churches  looked  to  Rome  as  the  center  of  unity,  and  in  matters 
of  extraordinary  difficulty,  which  could  not  be  settled  by  the 
authority  of  provincial  councils,  the  Apostolic  See  was  com 
monly  considered  as  the  court  of  last  appeal. 

Whilst  the  Church  was  thus  peacefully  carrying  on  her  mis 
sion,  there  burst  upon  her  the  last  and  in  some  respect  the 
most  violent  persecution.  With  occasional  lulls  and  intermis 
sions,  the  storm  raged  for  nine  long  years;  and  when  finally 
peace  was  restored,  the  Church's  fairest  provinces  lay  in  ruin. 
Not  only  had  thousands  of  Christians  been  slaughtered,  but 
many  also  had  proved  untrue  to  their  faith,  having  either 
offered  sacrifices  to  the  idols  or  bought  written  testimonials 
stating  that  they  had  done  so.  These  were  called  respectively 
sacrificati  and  libellatici,  whilst  others  who  had  surrendered 
the  Sacred  Writings  were  termed  traditores.  It  was  the  work 
of  reconciling  these  unfaithful  children,  grown  careless  during 
long  years  of  peace,  that  awaited  the  Church  when  she  finally 
emerged  from  the  storm  and  was  permanently  liberated  from 
pagan  domination  by  the  joint  action  of  Licinius  and  Con- 
stantine.  She  undertook  it  as  she  had  undertaken  similar  work 
many  a  time  before,  with  loving  patience  and  merciful  kind 
ness;  but  before  she  had  healed  the  wounds  struck  by  the  ter 
rible  persecution,  another  storm  burst  upon  her  that  was  to 
prove  almost  more  dangerous  than  the  fury  of  pagan  tyrants. 
This  was  the  Arian  heresy. 

A  —  RISE  OF  THE  ARIAN  HERESY 

Arius  seems  to  have  been  of  Libyan  origin,  and  was  born 
shortly  after  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  He  received 


220    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

his  early  training  at  Antioch,  where  he  frequented  the  school 
of  Lucian.  This  latter  was  a  somewhat  erratic  genius,  and 
on  account  of  his  heterodox  Christological  views  he  incurred 
the  censures  of  the  Church,  but  he  was  later  on  restored  to  her 
communion  and  died  a  martyr's  death.  After  the  completion 
of  his  studies,  Arius  was  received  among  the  Alexandrian 
clergy.  Though  for  some  time  excommunicated  on  account 
of  the  part  he  took  in  the  Meletian  schism,  he  was  eventually 
ordained  priest  by  bishop  Achillas,  whose  successor,  Alex 
ander,  placed  him  in  charge  of  Baucalis,  one  of  the  several 
parish  churches  of  the  city.  Here  he  soon  gained  a  consider 
able  following,  both  by  reason  of  his  ascetic  life,  his  dignified 
bearing,  and  his  keen  logic.  It  was  whilst  in  charge  of  this 
church  that  he  first  broached  his  heretical  views,  but  authors 
do  not  agree  in  relating  the  particular  circumstances  that  caused 
him  to  take  this  step.  When  called  to  account  by  his  bishop, 
he  refused  to  retract  or  correct  his  heterodox  statements,  being 
assured  of  the  support  of  his  many  followers.  And  so  the 
troubles  began  which  were  to  disturb  the  Eastern  Church  for 
nearly  a  hundred  years. 

At  the  root  and  center  of  the  conflict  was  the  old  Christo 
logical  problem  with  the  solution  of  which  the  minds  of  learned 
men  had  been  occupied  for  many  years  past.  If  there  be 
but  one  true  God,  how  can  Jesus  Christ  be  truly  divine?  In 
what  precise  sense,  therefore,  is  Jesus  the  Son  of  God?  Or 
as  believing  Christians  would  prefer  to  put  it :  As  Jesus  Christ 
is  true  God,  and  as  the  Father  is  true  God,  and  as  there  is 
only  one  true  God,  what  precise  relation  does  Jesus  Christ 
bear  to  the  Father?  Christian  antiquity  had  always  answered 
in  rather  general  terms :  Jesus  Christ  is  the  only  Son  of  God, 
begotten  from  all  eternity  by  the  Father,  and  therefore  true 
God ;  but  how  this  can  be  reconciled  with  the  absolute  oneness 
of  the  Godhead,  is  a  mystery  that  must  be  accepted  on  the 
authority  of  God's  word.  "  Whoso  wish  to  explain  it  are  out 
of  their  minds."  From  the  standpoint  of  faith  this  answer 
was  quite  sads factory,  but  it  did  not  satisfy  those  whose  philo 
sophical  bent  led  them  to  look  for  the  ultimate  reasons  of 
things.  Hence  many  explanations  were  attempted,  some  more 


THE  ARIAN  HERESY  221 

or  less  orthodox,  others  obviously  heretical.  Here  are  a  few 
of  them,  a  brief  statement  of  which  will  at  the  same  time 
serve  to  point  out  the  intellectual  genesis  of  Arianism. 

The  second  century  Apologists  admitted  the  eternal  genera 
tion  of  the  Word  and  staunchly  defended  both  His  personal 
distinction  from  the  Father  and  His  true  divinity;  but  by 
way  of  explanation  they  postulated,  at  least  as  far  as  the 
wording  goes,  a  certain  subordination  of  the  Word  to  the 
Father  and  a  temporal  "  bringing  forth  "  in  view  of  the  crea 
tive  work.  The  Adoptionists  (190)  and  Paul  of  Samosata 
(268)  cut  the  Gordian  knot  by  considering  the  Word  to  be 
impersonal,  a  merely  outward  aspect  of  the  one  God  in  His 
relation  to  the  external  world.  Jesus,  therefore,  as  they  re 
garded  Him,  was  purely  human,  a  holy  man,  in  whom  dwelt 
permanently  the  impersonal  Word  of  God.  On  account  of 
His  great  merit  He  was  adopted  by  the  Father  as  His  only 
Son,  and  as  such  He  became  entitled  to  special  veneration. 
Hence  for  them  there  was  no  further  Christological  problem 
to  be  solved.  The  better  to  refute  these  heretics,  some  Catho 
lic  writers,  among  them  those  of  the  Alexandrian  school,  took 
over  the  Subordinationist  expressions  of  the  earlier  Apologists 
and  gave  them  a  certain  vogue,  especially  in  the  East.  As 
a  result,  not  a  few  Eastern  bishops,  whilst  professing  the  true 
divinity  of  the  Son,  maintained  at  the  same  time  that  He  was 
to  be  regarded  as  inferior  to  the  Father.  The  Church  mean 
while  contented  herself  with  defending  the  oneness  of  God 
against  the  pagans  and  the  personal  distinction  of  Father  and 
Son  against  the  Medalists,  without  as  yet  taking  official  cog 
nizance  of  the  Subordinationist  tendencies  that  were  at  work. 

When  the  ground  had  thus  been  slowly  prepared  for  the 
seeds  of  heresy,  Arianism  took  its  rise.  Its  author  chose  an 
intermediate  stand  between  the  Adoptionists  and  the  second- 
century  Apologists.  Against  the  former  he  defended  the  ex 
istence  of  a  personal  Word,  and  against  the  latter  he  denied 
the  Word's  true  divinity  and  also  His  eternal  generation.  His 
teaching  on  the  subject,  as  gathered  from  the  few  fragments 
of  his  works  that  still  remain,  may  be  reduced  to  the  following 
points : 


222  -   FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

i°.  God  is  absolutely  transcendent  and  cannot  communicate 
His  essence;  therefore  He  cannot  have  a  Son  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  term. 

2°.  As  a  necessary  consequence,  the  Word  is  a  creature, 
though  altogether  unique  in  perfection  and  position.  There 
was  a  time  when  He  was  not,  and  He  was  made  out  of  noth 
ing,  truly  created. 

3°.  Yet  because  of  His  surpassing  excellence  and  perfec 
tion,  He  was  endowed  with  creative  power  and  in  time  created 
the  world,  acting  as  the  Father's  instrument. 

4°.  He  acted  also  as  the  agent  of  redemption,  and  for  that 
purpose  became  incarnate  in  Jesus. 

5°.  Being  a  creature,  He  is  subject  to  the  Father,  knows  the 
Father  only  imperfectly,  and  during  the  time  of  His  proba 
tion  was,  absolutely  speaking,  liable  to  fall  into  sin.  Yet  He 
served  God  faithfully  in  all  things  and  thereby  merited  to  be 
adopted  as  God's  Son,  in  consequence  of  which  adoption  He  is 
entitled  to  the  veneration  of  men.2 

In  320  Arius  was  cited  before  a  synod  of  Egyptian  and 
Libyan  bishops,  about  a  hundred  in  number.  He  appeared 
but  refused  to  retract;  whereupon  he  was  excommunicated 
and  after  some  time  was  expelled  from  the  city.  This,  how 
ever,  made  him  only  the  more  zealous  to  spread  his  views. 
By  letters  to  bishops  and  by  tracts  and  songs  written  for  the 
common  people,  he  made  propaganda  for  his  cause  in  many 
parts  of  Palestine,  Syria,  and  Asia  Minor.  To  counteract 
these  proselytizing  efforts  of  Arius,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
justify  his  own  action  and  that  of  his  fellow-bishops,  Alex 
ander  sent  a  circular  letter  to  the  various  churches  of  the 
East,  in  which,  after  briefly  summarizing  the  condemned 
errors,  he  set  forth  what  he  considered  to  be  the  traditional 
teaching  of  the  Church  concerning  the  matter  in  dispute.  The 
following  points  may  be  noted: 

i°.  The  Son  is  not  created  ex  nihilo,  but  begotten  by  the 
Father  from  His  own  substance.  He  was  begotten  not  in 
time,  but  from  all  eternity. 

2  Fragm.  ex  Thalia ;  fragm.  ex  Ep.  ad  Alex.  P.  G.  26,  21 ;  26,  705,  708. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIOEA  223 

2°.  He  is,  therefore,  not  an  adopted  Son  of  the  Father, 
but  His  Son  by  nature. 

3°.  The  Father  and  the  Son  are  inseparable  in  being,  though 
distinct  as  persons.  The  Son  is  immutable,  immortal,  im 
peccable. 

4°.  The  Father  created  the  world  through  the  Son,  yet  the 
Son  is  of  the  same  substance  as  the  Father. 

5°.  In  all  this  there  is  a  mystery,  which  we  accept  by  faith, 
though  we  cannot  fathom  it  by  reason.3 

Thus  the  traditional  teaching  of  the  Church  and  the  obvious 
rejection  of  it  by  Arius  were  placed  in  a  clear  light;  but  the 
latter's  influence  with  not  a  few  bishops,  who  were  more  or 
less  inclined  to  Subordinationism,  made  the  quiet  suppression 
of  his  teaching  impossible.  Hence  another  remedy  was  tried, 
hitherto  unheard  of,  the  intervention  of  a  general  council. 


B  —  THE  COUNCIL  OF 

Whilst  ecclesiastical  and  religious  unity  was  thus  seriously 
endangered,  Constantine,  by  his  victory  over  Licinius  in  323, 
became  sole  ruler  of  the  Empire.  Heartily  tired  of  wars  and 
strifes,  his  first  efforts  on  visiting  his  newly  acquired  Eastern 
dominions  were  directed  towards  bringing  about  an  under 
standing  between  the  contending  parties.  He  was  as  yet  only 
a  catechumen,  and  in  fact  remained  such  until  shortly  before 
his  death,  still  he  considered  himself  as  duly  constituted 
"  Episcopus  in  externis,"  and  therefore  entitled  to  exert  his 
imperial  power  in  trying  to  bring  this  annoying  conflict  to 
a  close.  With  this  object  in  view,  he  sent  a  letter  to  Alex 
ander  and  Arius,  bidding  them  to  adjust  their  differences.  As 
bearer  of  this  imperial  mandate,  he  selected  Hosius,  bishop 
of  Cordova  in  Spain,  whom  he  had  for  some  years  past  em 
ployed  as  his  ecclesiastical  adviser.  Hosius,  however,  soon 
found  that  this  was  not  a  matter  that  could  be  settled  out  of 
hand  by  the  authority  of  the  Emperor;  and  when  he  informed 
his  master  of  this  on  his  return,  the  latter  determined  that  a 
general  council  should  be  summoned  without  delay. 

8  Socrates,  Hist.  Eccl.  I,  6  ;  Theodoret,  Hist.  Eccl.  I,  3.     P.  G.  18,  548  sq. 


224 


FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 


As  neither  the  contending  parties  nor  the  Pope  made  any 
objection,  an  invitation  was  sent  to  such  bishops  of  the  Empire 
as  could  be  reached,  and  means  of  transportation  were  pro 
vided  by  the  State.  About  300  answered  the  summons,  al 
though  tradition  gives  the  total  number  as  318.  These  were 
mostly  from  Asia  Minor,  Syria,  and  Egypt.  From  the  West 
strictly  so  called  only  a  few  attended,  but  they  seem  to  have 
been  men  of  ability  and  of  some  importance.  Pope  Sylvester 
sent  as  his  representatives  the  Roman  presbyters  Vitus  and 
Vincent,  Spain  was  represented  by  Hosius  of  Cordova,  Gaul 
by  Nicasius  of  Dijon,  Calabria  by  the  Metropolitan  Mark, 
Pannonia  by  Domnus  of  Stridon,  and  Africa  by  Csecilius  of 
Carthage.  Among  those  present  were  also  several  bishops 
who  had  suffered  for  the  faith  and  still  bore  upon  their  per 
sons  the  marks  of  conflict.  There  was  Paul  of  Neocsesarea 
with  his  burnt  hands,  Amphion  of  Epiphania,  one  of  whose 
eyes  had  been  plucked  out,  the  venerable  Paphnutius  also  blind 
in  one  eye  and  lame  from  his  long  sufferings  in  the  metal 
mines,  and  his  companion  Potamon  who  had  endured  the  same 
tortures. 

It  was  towards  the  middle  of  June,  325,  that  the  bishops 
assembled  in  the  great  hall  of  the  imperial  palace  at  Nicaea  in 
Bithynia.  On  the  whole  it  was  a  venerable  assembly,  although 
not  all  the  bishops  gathered  there  were  distinguished  either 
for  learning  or  for  sanctity;  nor  were  all  of  them  entirely 
orthodox  in  their  doctrinal  views.  In  fact.  Theonas  of  Mar- 
marica  and  Secundus  of  Ptolmais,  as  the  event  showed,  were 
in  full  accord  with  Arius,  whilst  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  Theo- 
gonis  of  Nicsea,  and  Maris  of  Chalcedon,  at  least  supported 
him  in  his  opposition  to  Alexander.  The  Emperor  himself 
was  present  in  state,  but  he  did  not  take  part  in  the  transac 
tions  of  the  Council,  in  so  far  as  they  touched  matters  of 
faith;  nor  did  he  interfere  with  freedom  of  discussion  on 
either  side.  As  the  Acts  have  not  been  preserved,  the  mode 
of  procedure  cannot  be  established  with  any  degree  of  cer 
tainty;  nor  is  it  certain  who  acted  as  president,  although  it  is 
rather  commonly  assumed  that  this  honor  was  conferred  on 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICE  A  225 

Hosius,  who  is  also  supposed  to  have  been  deputed  by  the 
Pope  as  his  legate. 

In  order  to  understand  at  all  the  events  that  followed  the 
dissolution  of  the  Council,  it  is  necessary  here  to  call  attention 
to  the  work  which  the  assembled  bishops  were,  in  the  first 
instance,  expected  to  accomplish.  They  had  not  been  sum 
moned  from  distant  parts  of  the  Empire  to  decide  whether 
Christ  was  true  God.  Nor  even,  assuming  His  true  divinity, 
to  define  in  what  precisely  His  relation  to  the  Father  con 
sisted.  This  latter  point  might,  and  in  fact  did  come  before 
the  Council  by  way  of  supplement  to  its  principal  work ;  but  it 
was  not  the  main  point  at  issue.  The  Council  was  summoned 
to  decide  the  quarrel  between  Arius  and  Alexander;  that  is, 
to  determine  whether  Arius  had  been  justly  condemned  and 
deposed  by  his  own  bishop  in  view  of  his  doctrinal  position. 
This,  as  is  obvious,  necessitated  an  examination  of  the  teaching 
of  Arius  by  the  assembled  bishops,  and  this  examination  led 
to  animated  discussion;  but  at  no  stage  of  the  deliberation 
was  the  true  Godhead  of  Christ  considered  open  for  debate. 
Hence  as  soon  as  Arius  openly  avowed  his  views  before  the 
council,  all  further  discussion  was  at  an  end.  With  the  excep 
tion  of  his  followers  already  mentioned,  the  bishops  would  not 
listen  to  such  blasphemous  utterances  as  that  the  Word  was 
not  truly  Son  of  God,  that  He  was  not  true  God,  that  there 
had  been  a  time  when  He  did  not  exist ;  and  hence  the  sentence 
passed  upon  Arius  by  his  own  bishop  was  not  only  sustained 
but  explicitly  confirmed.  If  this  fact,  so  obvious  from  the 
fragmentary  records  we  have  of  what  took  place,  be  over 
looked,  the  Arian  controversy  can  lead  to  only  one  conclusion, 
namely,  that  before  the  Council  of  Nicaea  the  true  divinity  of 
the  Son  and  His  eternal  generation  from  the  substance  of  the 
Father  were  not  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  faith.  And 
this  conclusion  is  absolutely  false,  as  appears  quite  clearly  from 
what  has  been  said  on  these  points  in  the  preceding  chap 
ters. 

It  was  only  when  this  main  work,  the  condemnation  of 
Arius  as  judged  by  his  own  teaching,  was  accomplished,  and 


226    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

the  supplementary  task  of  defining  the  orthodox  faith  in  pre 
cise  terms  was  undertaken,  that  a  real  difference  of  views  mani 
fested  itself.  As  already  mentioned,  some  of  the  assembled 
bishops  were  by  no  means  learned  men;  others,  although  suf 
ficiently  versed  in  matters  of  faith,  preferred  to  leave  well 
enough  alone ;  others  again,  whilst  admitting  the  true  divinity 
of  the  Son,  were  inclined  to  hold  that  He  must  be  in  some 
way  subordinated  to  the  Father,  so  as  to  save  the  absolute 
oneness  of  God  and  at  the  same  time  to  avoid  all  appearance 
of  Sabellianism.  Hence  when  it  was  proposed  to  draw  up 
a  Creed  wrhich  would  make  all  subterfuge  on  the  part  of  Arius 
and  his  followers  impossible,  there  was  considerable  disa 
greement  about  the  terms  to  be  adopted.  However,  when 
Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  submitted  a  symbol  of  faith  that 
favored  the  views  of  Arius,  it  was  promptly  rejected.  An 
other  one  substituted  by  Eusebius  of  Caesar ea  was  pronounced 
too  vague  in  its  phraseology  to  serve  as  a  test  of  orthodoxy, 
although  it  seems  that  this  was  finally  adopted,  after  such 
clauses  had  been  inserted  as  would  place  the  true  divinity  of 
the  Son  and  His  eternal  generation  in  the  clearest  possible 
light.  It  reads  as  follows : 

"  We  believe  in  one  God  the  Father  all-sovereign,  maker  of 
all  things  both  visible  and  invisible.  And  in  one  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  the  Son  of  God,  the  Only-Begotten  of  the  Father,  that 
is,  of  the  essence  of  the  Father,  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light, 
Very  God  of  Very  God;  begotten  and  not  made,  consubstan- 
tial  with  the  Father,  by  whom  all  was  made,  both  the  things 
that  are  in  heaven  and  the  things  that  are  on  earth :  who  for 
us  men  and  for  our  salvation  came  down  and  was  incarnate, 
became  man,  suffered,  and  rose  again  on  the  third  day,  as 
cended  into  heaven,  and  will  come  to  judge  the  living  and 
the  dead.  And  in  the  Holy  Ghost/' 

Then  follow  the  anathemas,  which  not  only  sever  Arius  and 
his  followers  from  the  Christian  communion,  but  also  serve 
to  elucidate  the  foregoing  Creed.  "  And  those  that  say  there 
was  a  time  when  He  was  not,  and  before  He  was  begotten 
He  was  not,  and  that  He  was  made  out  of  nothing,  or  assert 
that  the  Son  of  God  is  of  another  substance  or  essence,  or 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIOEA  227 

created,  or  capable  of  change  or  alteration,  the  Catholic  Church 
anathematizes." 

Those  who  objected  to  the  wording  of  the  Creed,  found 
most  fault  with  the  term  homoousios,  consubstantial.  This, 
however,  was  not  so  much  on  account  of  its  meaning,  because 
the  phrases,  "  begotten  of  the  essence  of  the  Father,"  "  Very 
God  of  Very  God,"  are  substantially  synonymous  with  it;  but 
there  were  extrinsic  reasons  against  its  insertion  into  the  Creed 
that  had  considerable  weight  with  many  of  the  Eastern  bishops. 
To  begin  with,  it  was  not  a  Scriptural  term,  although  the 
reality  for  which  it  stood  was  clearly  enough  contained  in 
the  Sacred  Writings.  Worse  still,  it  had  been  the  watchword 
of  the  Sabellians,  who  denied  the  personal  distinction  between 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  for  that  reason  the  term  had 
been  set  aside  by  the  Synod  of  Antioch  some  sixty  years  before. 
However,  when  it  was  pointed  out  that  there  was  no  need 
of  defining  the  faith  in  Scriptural  terms,  that  the  synod  of  An 
tioch  had  found  no  fault  with  the  term  itself  but  only  with  the 
heterodox  sense  attached  to  it  by  Paul  of  Samosata,  and  that 
it  provided  a  test  of  orthodoxy  which  admitted  of  no  subter 
fuge  on  the  part  of  Arian  heretics,  the  majority  yielded  and 
consented  to  its  insertion  in  the  Creed.  Thereupon  the 
bishops,  with  the  exception  of  Theonas  and  Secundus,  sub 
scribed  their  names.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  Eusebius 
of  Nicomedia  and  other  friends  of  Arius  would  not  have  done 
so  had  it  not  been  for  the  determined  attitude  assumed  by 
Constantine,  who  let  it  be  clearly  understood  that  the  decision 
of  the  majority  should  be  accepted.  Arius,  Theonas  and 
Secundus  were  then  banished  to  Illyricum. 

Two  other  disputes  were  settled  by  the  Council.  Meletius 
of  Lycopolis,  a  rigor ist  in  the  matter  of  penance,  had  caused 
a  schism  at  Antioch  and  greatly  disturbed  the  peace  of  the 
Church;  for  this  he  was  deposed  but  was  allowed  to  retain 
the  name  and  title  of  bishop.  Then  the  paschal  dispute, 
dating  from  the  end  of  the  second  century,  was  amicably  ad 
justed,  the  bishop  of  Antioch  and  his  Eastern  colleagues  con 
senting  to  conform  to  the  custom  prevailing  at  Alexandria 
and  in  the  West. 


228    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

Finally  a  number  of  disciplinary  canons,  twenty  in  all,  were 
drawn  up  of  which  the  following  may  be  mentioned  here 
as  throwing  some  light  on  the  trend  of  ecclesiastical  legisla 
tion:  (4)  Bishops  in  each  province  are  to  be  installed  by 
all  their  colleagues ;  the  installation  must  be  confirmed  by  the 
metropolitan.  (16)  No  bishop  is  allowed  to  receive  or  pro 
mote  clerics  who  have  deserted  their  own  church.  (5)  The 
bishops  of  each  province  are  urged  to  assemble  twice  a  year 
in  council,  for  the  purpose  of  delivering  judgment  in  cases  of 
appeal.  (15,  16)  Bishops  and  priests  are  forbidden  to  trans 
fer  themselves  from  one  church  to  another.  (17)  The  clergy 
are  forbidden  to  practice  usury.  (3)  They  must  not  keep 
under  their  roof  any  woman  who  may  give  cause  for  suspicion. 
(8)  Novations  shall  be  admitted  to  communion  on  their  simple 
promise  to  accept  Catholic  dogmas  and  to  hold  communion 
with  persons  twice  married  and  with  apostates  who  have  re 
pented.  (6,  7)  The  traditional  rights  and  prerogatives  of 
Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem  are  confirmed,  the  posi 
tion  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  Patriarch  in  the  West  being 
instanced  as  an  example  in  this  matter. 

The  Council  was  occupied  with  these  various  matters  during 
a  period  of  about  two  months  and  a  half,  and  then  the  bishops 
returned  to  their  several  sees.  Arianism  had  been  officially 
condemned,  but  as  subsequent  events  showed,  peace  had  not 
been  restored  to  the  Church. 

C  —  SOME  FOURTH  CENTURY  THEOLOGIANS 

As  doctrinal  development  in  Patristic  times  proceeded  most 
rapidly  during  the  century  which  intervened  between  the 
Council  of  Nicsea  (325)  and  that  of  Ephesus  (431),  it  seems 
in  place  here  to  give  a  short  biographical  notice  of  the  theolo 
gians  who  chiefly  contributed  thereto,  and  whose  names  recur 
again  and  again  in  the  following  chapters.  It  will  enable  the 
reader  to  follow  the  trend  of  events  more  intelligently. 

i°.  Eusebius  of  Ccesarea  in  Palestine  (256-340). — He  was  a 
friend  and  disciple  of  Pamphilus,  head  of  the  catechetical 
school  at  Csesarea.  In  many  respects  the  most  learned  man 
of  his  age,  he  was  nevertheless  but  a  shallow  theologian. 


SOME  CHAMPIONS  OF  THE  FAITH 


229 


Moreover  his  orthodoxy  was  justly  suspected,  as  he  supported 
Arius,  fraternized  with  the  Eusebians,  rejected  the  homoou- 
sios,  and  was  opposed  to  Athanasius.  Principal  works: 
Chronicle,  Ecclesiastical  History,  Praeparatio  Ev angelica, 
Demonstratio  Evangelica,  Contra  Marcellum,  Ecclesiastica 
Theologia. 

2.  St.  Athanasius  of  Alexandria  (295-373). —  Chief  oppo 
nent  of  Arianism  and  "  Standard  Bearer  of  Orthodoxy."  Of 
his  early  life  nothing  is  known.  He  was  ordained  deacon  in 
319,  accompanied  his  bishop,  Alexander,  to  Nicsea  in  325,  and 
was  consecrated  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  in  328.  He  was  a 
man  of  considerable  learning,  of  great  holiness  of  life,  and 
a  powerful  adversary  of  the  Arians.  The  latter  succeeded  in 
having  him  banished  five  times,  but  he  lived  to  see  the  decline 
of  their  faction. —  Principal  works :  Oratio  de  Incarnatione 
Verbi,  De  Decretis  Niccunis,  De  Synodis,  Epistolae  IV  a  Ser- 
apionem,  Vita  Venerabilis  Patris  Nostri  Antonii,  Festal  Let 
ters,  Contra  Arianos. 

3°.  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (315-386). —  Ordained  priest  in 
345,  he  became  bishop  of  Jerusalem  about  350.  He  was  a 
staunch  opponent  of  Arianism,  but,  most  likely  for  prudential 
reasons,  he  never  used  the  term  homoousios.  The  Arians 
caused  him  to  be  exiled  three  times,  once  for  eleven  years ;  but 
he  was  reinstated  in  time  to  take  part  in  the  Council  of  Con 
stantinople  in  381. —  Principal  works:  Catecheses,  twenty- 
four  in  number,  which  contain  an  almost  complete  body  of 
Christian  doctrine. 

4°.  St.  Basil  of  Ccesarea  in  Cappadocia  (331—379)- — First 
a  monk,  then  a  priest  (346),  and  lastly  metropolitan  of 
Csesarea  (370).  Distinguished  as  an  exponent  of  orthodox 
teaching,  famous  as  a  prelate,  and  a  man  of  deeds  rather  than 
of  words,  he  was  even  during  his  life-time  styled  the  Great. 
He  bore  a  principal  part  in  the  work  of  pacification  during 
the  latter  years  of  the  Arian  struggle. —  Principal  works : 
Five  books  Contra  Eunomium,  De  Spiritu  Sancto,  about 
twenty-five  Homilies  on  the  Hexaemeron  and  Psalms,  three 
Canonical  Letters,  Rules  for  Ascetics,  Liturgy. 

5°.  St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  "the  Theologian"  (330- 


230    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

390). —  He  was  an  intimate  friend  of  Basil,  together  with 
whom  he  received  his  literary  education  at  Athens.  Ordained 
priest  by  his  own  father  (361),  and  consecrated  bishop  of 
Sasima  by  Basil  (371),  he  was  transferred  to  Constantinople 
in  379.  Two  years  later,  whilst  the  Second  General  Council 
was  in  session  there,  he  resigned  that  see,  and  thereafter  gov 
erned  the  Church  of  Nazianzus  till  his  death  in  390.  Of  a 
somewhat  irresolute  disposition,  he  was  anything  but  practical. 
He  is  commonly  regarded  as  one  of  the  greatest  orators  of 
Christian  antiquity. —  Principal  works :  Forty-five  Orationes, 
most  of  which  bear  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Blessed  Trinity. 

6°.  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  brother  of  St.  Basil  (334—394). 
—  In  371,  he  was,  much  against  his  inclinations,  consecrated 
bishop  of  Nyssa,  "  an  insignificant  town  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  Basil."  Soon  after  deposed  by  the  Eusebians,  he  led  a 
wandering  life  till  379,  when  he  was  reinstated.  He  was  one 
of  the  principal  theologians  at  the  Council  of  Constantinople 
in  381,  and  is  regarded  as  the  most  diligent  and  versatile 
writer  of  his  time.  Though  an  able  theologian,  he  was  much 
more  eminent  as  a  philosopher.  He  cherished  great  admira 
tion  for  Origen,  and  to  some  extent  followed  his  teaching. — 
Principal  works:  Catechesis,  Twelve  Books  against  Euno- 
mius,  Two  Books  against  Apollinaris.  The  first  named  work 
is  an  argumentative  defense  of  the  principal  Christian  doc 
trines,  against  Pagans,  Jews,  and  Heretics. 

7°.  Didymus  the  Blind  (310-395). —  He  had  lost  his  sight 
when  four  years  old,  but  by  prayer,  meditation,  and  close  atten 
tion  to  the  lectures  given  in  the  schools,  he  acquired  extensive 
and  accurate  knowledge.  For  more  than  half  a  century  he 
was  director  of  the  catechetical  school  at  Alexandria.  He  was 
strongly  influenced  by  the  teaching  of  Origen,  and  fell  into 
some  of  his  errors.  In  the  Fifth  General  Council  (553),  he 
was  condemned  together  with  Origen. —  Principal  works: 
De  Trinitate,  De  Spiritu  Sancto.  The  latter  is  considered  to 
be  the  best  treatise  on  the  subject  in  Christian  antiquity. 

8°.  St.  Epiphanius  of  Salamis  (315-403). —  A  Palestinian 
by  birth,  and  for  thirty  years  superior  of  a  monastery  at 
Eleutheropolis  in  Judaea,  he  was  in  367  made  bishop  of 


SOME  CHAMPIONS  OF  THE  FAITH  231 

Salamis  (Constantia)  in  Cyprus.  His  chief  ambition  seems 
to  have  been  to  be  orthodox  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  term, 
and  a  great  part  of  his  life  was  spent  in  hunting  up  and  re 
futing  heretics. —  Principal  works :  Ancoratus  "  the  firmly 
anchored  man,"  an  exposition  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
and  particularly  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  Panarion  or  Adversus 
Hccreses,  a  catalogue  and  exposition  of  eighty  heretical  sys 
tems. 

9°.  Diodorus  of  Tarsus  in  Cilicia  (?~39o). —  Belonging  to 
one  of  the  noblest  families  of  Antioch,  and  singularly  talented, 
he  received  a  finished  education  in  every  branch  of  secular 
and  sacred  sciences.  At  first  an  ascetic  and  a  friend  of  St. 
Basil,  he  was  made  bishop  of  Tarsus  in  378.  From  357  to 
373,  he  was  the  chief  supporter  of  orthodoxy  at  Antioch;  but 
over-emphasizing  certain  tendencies  of  the  Antiochene  school, 
he  sowed  the  seeds  of  Nestorianism. —  Principal  works : 
Commentaries  on  Sacred  Scripture.  Only  a  few  fragments 
of  his  writings  are  extant. 

10°.  St.  John  Chrysostom  (344-407). —  He  was  born  at 
Antioch  of  a  wealthy  family,  and  received  his  literary  educa 
tion  from  the  famous  rhetorician  Libanius.  Later  on  he 
studied  the  sacred  sciences  under  Meletius,  Patriarch  of  Anti 
och,  and  Diodorus  of  Tarsus.  For  some  years  he  led  an 
ascetical  life,  but  was  made  priest  in  386.  After  preaching 
for  ten  years  with  great  success  at  Antioch,  he  was  in  397 
consecrated  Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  Twice  banished 
from  his  see,  he  died  in  exile  at  Comana  in  Pontus.  Though 
the  first  of  orators,  he  holds  but  a  secondary  rank  as  a  theo 
logian. —  Principal  works :  Most  of  his  writings  are  Scrip 
tural  expositions  in  the  form  of  homilies;  76  on  Genesis, 
60  on  the  Psalms,  90  on  Matthew,  80  on  John,  and  over  100 
on  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  To  these  must  be  added  his 
beautiful  treatise  on  the  Priesthood,  De  Sacerdotio  in  six 
books ;  and  a  number  of  Catecheses. 

11°.  St.  Amphilochius  of  Iconium  in  Lycaonia  (340—?). — 
He  was  a  cousin  of  Gregory  of  Nazianzus.  He  received  a 
highly  finished  education  under  the  direction  of  Libanius,  and 
thereafter  practiced  law  for  some  years  at  Constantinople. 


232    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

In  374  he  was  consecrated  bishop  of  Iconium  and  became 
metropolitan  of  Lycaonia.  He  was  highly  esteemed  by  St. 
Basil,  with  whom  he  effectively  cooperated  in  defending  the 
faith  against  the  Arians.  He  wrote  quite  voluminously,  but 
from  the  sixth  century  until  a  few  years  ago  his  writings 
attracted  little  attention. —  Principal  works :  Of  his  many 
literary  productions  only  eight  Orationes,  a  letter  Ad  Seleu- 
cum,  and  some  fragments  remain. 

12°.  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  in  Cilicia  (350—428). —  Born 
in  affluence  at  Antioch,  he  enjoyed  the  advantages  of  a  liberal 
education  under  Libanius,  being  a  fellow  student  of  John 
Chrysostom.  He  studied  theology  under  Diodorus  of  Tarsus, 
was  ordained  priest  in  383,  and  then  threw  himself  heart  and 
soul  into  the  defense  of  orthodoxy  against  the  Arians,  Mace 
donians,  and  Apollinarians.  In  392  he  was  consecrated 
bishop  of  Mopsuestia,  and  for  more  than  a  third  of  a  century 
displayed  great  zeal  and  energy  in  the  discharge  of  his  pastoral 
duties.  Unfortunately,  in  his  Christolosfical  teaching  he  still 
further  developed  the  erroneous  views  of  Diodorus,  and  thus 
prepared  the  way  for  the  Nestorian  heresy.  He  was  con 
demned  in  the  Fifth  General  Council  (553). —  Principal 
works:  Commentaries  on  Sacred  Scripture,  Contra  Enno- 
mium,  a  book  on  the  Mysteries,  De  Assumente  et  Assumpto. 

13°.  Aphraates,  "  the  Persian  Sage." —  Neither  the  date 
of  his  birth  nor  of  his  death  are  known,  but  he  wrote  between 
336  and  356.  He  was  first  a  monk,  and  then  bishop  of  Mar 
Mathseus,  a  Persian  monastery  East  of  Mosul.  His  Christol- 
ogy  is  rather  undeveloped,  but  quite  orthodox.  He  frequently 
touches  on  the  sacrament  of  penance  and  the  Blessed  Eu 
charist. —  Twenty-three  Demonstrationes,  or  homilies,  are  the 
most  important  of  his  works  that  have  come  down  to  us. 

14°.  St.  Ephraem  Syrus  (306-376). —  He  was  born  at 
Nisibis,  and  as  a  young  man  led  the  life  of  a  hermit.  He  was 
highly  esteemed  by  Bishop  Jacob  of  his  native  city,  whom  he 
is  said  to  have  accompanied  to  the  Council  of  Nicsea.  By 
him  he  was  also  made  head-master  of  the  school  of  Nisibis, 
but  when  in  363  the  city  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Persians, 
he  took  up  his  abode  at  Edessa.  In  370  he  traveled  to  Cap- 


SOME  CHAMPIONS  OF  THE  FAITH  233 

padocia,  in  order  to  make  the  acquaintance  of  Basil  the  Great. 
The  latter  ordained  him  deacon.  His  own  countrymen  call 
him  the  "  Eloquent  Mouth,"  "  Prophet  of  the  Syrians,"  "  Doc 
tor  of  the  World,"  "  Pillar  of  the  Church,"  "  Lyre  of  the  Holy 
Ghost." —  Principal  works :  Commentaries  on  Holy  Scrip 
ture,  Homilies,  Sacred  Hymns  or  Chants. 

The  following  is  a  list  of  the  principal  Western  theologians 
during  the  same  period  of  doctrinal  development : 

i°.  Hosius  of  Cordova  in  Spain  (256-35?). —  He  was 
ecclesiastical  adviser  of  Constantine,  presided  at  the  Synod  of 
Sardica  and  probably  also  at  the  Council  of  Nicsea,  and  has 
been  called  the  "  Father  of  Councils."  It  seems  to  have  pri 
marily  been  owing  to  his  exertions  that  the  term  homoousios 
was  introduced  into  the  Nicene  Creed.  What  Athanasius  was 
to  the  East  that  Hosius  was  to  the  West,  and  he  has  ever 
been  honored  as  the  foremost  Western  champion  of  the  Catho 
lic  faith  against  Arianism.  In  his  extreme  old  age  he  was 
prevailed  upon  to  sign  an  Arian  symbol  of  faith,  but  on  his 
deathbed  he  declared  that  he  had  done  so  against  his  will. 
He  labored  for  the  faith  almost  exclusively  by  word  and  deeds ; 
his  writings  comprise  only  a  few  letters. 

2°.  St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers  (310-366). —  He  is  commonly 
called  the  "  Athanasius  of  the  West."  In  the  prime  of  life, 
he,  together  with  his  wife  and  daughter,  embraced  the  Catholic 
faith,  and  shortly  after  (355)  he  was  consecrated  bishop  of 
Poitiers.  Banished  through  the  machinations  of  the  Arian 
bishop  Saturninus  of  Aries  (355),  he  spent  four  years  in  Asia 
Minor,  where  he  became  familiar  with  the  Greek  language 
and  Eastern  theology.  After  his  return  to  his  diocese,  he 
succeeded  in  stamping  out  Arianism  in  Gaul.  He  may  be 
considered  as  the  first  really  great  theologian  of  the  Latin 
Church. —  Principal  works :  De  Trinitate,  De  Synodis,  Com 
mentaries. 

3°.  St.  Ambrose  of  Milan  (340-397). —  Whilst  still  a  cate 
chumen,  he  was  by  acclamation  chosen  bishop  of  Milan,  to 
succeed  the  Arian  Auxentius  (374).  He  was  a  man  of  great 
practical  ability,  a  staunch  defender  of  ecclesiastical  traditions, 
an  eloquent  preacher,  and  an  able  writer,  though  not  a  pro- 


234    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

found  theologian.  In  his  many  literary  productions  is  notice 
able  the  influence  of  Eastern  writers,  whose  works  he  seems 
to  have  carefully  studied. —  Principal  works :  Besides  his 
many  exegetical  writings,  his  De  Fide,  De  Spiritu  Sancto,  De 
Mysteriis,  De  Poenitentia,  and  De  Virginibus,  deserve  special 
mention. 

4°.  St.  Jerome  (331  or  340-420). —  He  was  born  of  Cath 
olic  parents  at  Stridon  in  Dalmatia,  but  at  the  age  of  twenty 
he  went  to  Rome,  where  he  was  shortly  after  his  arrival  bap 
tized  by  Pope  Liberius.  Somewhat  later  he  journeyed  to 
Treves,  to  Aquileia,  and  then  to  the  East,  always  in  search 
of  knowledge.  Finally  he  became  a  monk,  first  at  Chalcis  and 
then  at  Bethlehem,  where  he  was  ordained  priest.  He  was 
perhaps  the  most  erudite  man  of  his  time :  well  versed  in  Latin 
and  Greek  classics,  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  Hebrew  lan 
guage,  a  renowned  exegete,  and  an  able  writer.  As  a  the 
ologian,  however,  he  does  not  rank  very  high. —  Principal 
works:  Translation  and  recension  of  Holy  Scripture,  Com 
mentaries,  translations  of  many  Greek  theological  works,  De 
Viris  Illustribus,  Adversus  Jovinianum,  Contra  Vigilantium, 
Letters  and  Homilies. 

5°.  St.  Augustine  of  Hippo  in  Numidia  (354-430). — 
Among  the  many  great  men  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries 
he  was  facile  prince  ps,  and  a  grateful  posterity  has  honored 
him  with  the  title  "  Doctor  Gratiae."  As  a  young  man,  and 
whilst  still  a  catechumen,  he  fell  into  the  heresy  of  the  Mani- 
chseans,  in  which  he  remained  for  nine  years.  Whilst  sojourn 
ing  in  Italy,  he  was  converted  by  the  prayers  of  his  pious 
mother  and  received  baptism  from  St.  Ambrose  (387).  After 
his  return  to  Africa  he  led  for  three  years  a  monastic  life 
on  his  little  estate  near  Tagasta.  Then,  whilst  on  a  visit  to 
Hippo,  he  was  ordained  priest,  and  three  years  later  (394) 
was  consecrated  bishop  of  the  same  city.  During  more  than 
forty  years  he  labored  unceasingly  to  promote  the  interests 
of  the  faith,  healing  the  Donatist  schism,  vigorously  opposing 
the  Pelagian,  Semi-Pelagian,  and  Manichaean  heresies,  in 
structing  the  faithful,  and  training  up  a  body  of  model  priests. 
So  many  of  his  numerous  writings  are  of  paramount  im- 


SOME  CHAMPIONS  OF  THE  FAITH  235 

portance  that  it  is  impossible  to  mention  them  in  this  place. 
Regarding  the  number  of  his  works,  he  himself  tells  us,  that, 
leaving  aside  his  letters  and  discourses,  they  are  "  nonaginta 
tria  in  libris  ducentis  triginta  duobus,"  ninety-three  in  two 
hundred  and  thirty-two  books. 

6°.  Besides  these  great  Western  writers,  there  belong  to 
the  same  period  of  a  number  of  minor  lights  who  may  be 
mentioned  in  passing.  Phoebadius  of  Agen  in  Aquitaine,  who 
died  after  392.  He  is  the  reputed  author  of  a  treatise  De 
Fide  Orthodoxa  contra  Arianos,  and  also  of  a  Profession  of 
Faith. —  St.  Pacian  of  Barcelona  in  Spain.  Sometime  between 
360  and  390  he  wrote  three  letters  to  the  Novatian  Symproni- 
anus.  The  first  two  treat  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  the 
third  is  devoted  to  the  Catholic  teaching  on  Penance. —  Marius 
Victorinus,  a  famous  rhetorician  of  Rome  during  the  reign 
of  Constantius.  In  his  old  age  he  was  converted  to  Chris 
tianity,  and  wrote  three  works  against  the  Arians,  Adversus 
Arium,  De  Generatione  Divini  VerH,  and  De  Homoousio 
Recipiendo.  From  a  theological  point  of  view  they  are  of 
little  importance. —  Optatus  of  Mileve  in  Africa.  Between 
370  and  385  he  wrote  a  large  work  in  seven  books  Contra 
Parmenianum  Donatistam. —  Nicetas  of  Remesiana  in  Dacia. 
He  lived  towards  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  and  wrote  a 
work  for  the  instruction  of  candidates  for  Baptism:  Com- 
petentibus  ad  Baptismum  Instructions  Libellos  Sex. 


CHAPTER  XV 

THE  REACTION  AFTER  NIC^EA :    ITS  CAUSES :    AN  OUTLINE 
OF  THE  ARIAN  CONTROVERSY  1 

"  The  victory  over  Arianism  achieved  at  the  Council/'  says 
Bethune-Baker,  "  was  really  a  victory  snatched  by  the  superior 
energy  and  decision  of  a  small  minority  with  the  aid  of  half 
hearted  allies."  2  This  statement  is  a  half-truth,  and  like  most 
half -truths  leads  to  inferences  that  are  entirely  devoid  of  truth. 
The  condemnation  of  Arianism,  as  was  shown  in  the  preceding 
chapter,  was  practically  unanimous  and  spontaneous.  There 
was  no  half-heartedness  about  it  on  the  part  of  the  Council. 
But  the  positive  formulation  of  the  orthodox  faith,  conceived 
in  the  precise  terms  that  were  finally  chosen,  was  in  a  measure 
"  a  victory  snatched  by  the  superior  energy  and  decision  of 
a  small  minority  with  the  aid  of  half-hearted  allies."  And 
this  was  likely  enough  to  cause  some  sort  of  reaction  after 
these  "  half-hearted  allies  "  found  themselves  free  from  the 
influence  of  stronger  minds  and  the  restraint  of  imperial  au 
thority.  How  very  real  this  likelihood  was,  subsequent  events 
soon  showed. 

A  —  THE  REACTION  AFTER  NIC^A 

Hardly  had  the  Council  been  dissolved  when  the  trouble 
began.  In  Egypt  the  Arians  and  Meletians  caused  such  a 
disturbance  that  a  provincial  synod  had  to  be  summoned;  but 
it  led  to  no  results.  In  Asia  Minor  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  and 
Theogonis  of  Nicsea  openly  favored  Arianism.  They  were 
both  sent  into  banishment,  but  the  ominous  mutterings  of  the 

1Cfr.     Hefele,     History     of     the      to  the  Early  History  of  Christian 
Councils,  II,  1-86,  Eng.  Transl.  ist      Doctrine,    171-195;    Hergenroether, 
Edit.    Tixeront,    H.    D.    II,    37-48;      op.  cit.  I,  356-384. 
*  Bethune-Baker,    An    Introduction 

236 


ARIAN  REACTION  AFTER  NICEA  237 

storm  continued.  Some  time  later  they  were  recalled,  through 
the  influence  of  Constantia  sister  of  Constantine.  Then  Arius 
himself,  after  making  a  profession  of  faith  that  was  conceived 
in  the  vaguest  terms,  was  allowed  to  return.  Preparations 
were  even  made  for  his  readmission  into  the  Church,  but  his 
sudden  death  frustrated  the  Emperor's  designs. 

Meanwhile  the  crafty  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  had  wormed 
himself  into  the  favor  of  Constantine  and  was  thereby  enabled 
to  strengthen  his  party  in  its  opposition  to  the  Council.  He 
soon  had  a  large  following,  known  to  history  as  the  Eusebians. 
They  were  all  men  whose  doctrinal  views  were  undefined  and 
whose  training  had  for  the  most  part  been  along  Subordina- 
tionist  lines.  Still  afraid  to  attack  the  Council  openly,  he  and 
his  party  first  endeavored  to  undo  the  principal  champions  of 
orthodoxy.  In  330  they  succeeded  in  deposing  Eustathius, 
Patriarch  of  Antioch,  on  the  charge  of  Sabellianism.  Some 
what  later  they  attacked  Marcellus  of  Ancyra,  who  had  written  a 
book  De  Subjectione  Domini,  in  which  Eusebius  of  Csesarea 
claimed  to  find  a  defense  of  Adoptionism.  At  a  synod  held 
in  Constantinople  they  brought  about  his  deposition.  The 
person,  however,  whom  they  most  desired  to  ruin  was 
Athanasius,  who,  on  the  death  of  Alexander  in  328,  had  been 
elected  Patriarch  of  Alexandria.  He  had  been  present  at  the 
Council  as  deacon  of  Alexander,  and  had  greatly  distinguished 
himself  in  showing  up  the  sophistries  of  Arius.  For  this  he 
had  incurred  the  undying  hatred  of  the  Eusebians.  As  they 
could  find  nothing  else  against  him,  they  trumped  up  a  political 
charge  and  thereby  succeeded  in  having  him  banished  to 
Treves.  Then  Constantine  died,  being  baptized  on  his  death 
bed  by  the  principal  author  of  all  this  mischief,  Eusebius  of 
Nicomedia.  He  was  succeeded  in  the  East  by  his  son  Con- 
stantius,  a  man  of  no  fixed  principles,  under  whom  the  Eusebi 
ans  had  a  free  hand. 

B  —  NATURE  AND  CAUSES  OF  THE  ARIAN  CONTROVERSY 

In  order  to  understand  the  religious  confusion  that  ensued 
shortly  after  the  death  of  Constantine,  as  well  as  to  form 


238    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

a  correct  judgment  of  its  bearing  on  orthodox  faith,  it  is 
very  necessary  to  keep  the  following  facts  clearly  in  mind. 

i°.  The  disturbance  did  not  affect  the  whole  Church,  but 
was  practically  confined  to  Christian  communities  within  the 
boundaries  of  the  Eastern  Empire.  In  the  West  only  a  few 
localities  were  affected  by  the  dissension,  and  most  of  these 
but  for  a  short  time. 

2°.  The  conflict  was  not  between  the  Church  and  Arianism 
in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term.  Real  Arians,  that  is,  persons 
who  denied  the  true  divinity  of  Christ,  constituted  only  a  small 
minority  and  were  violently  attacked  by  all  other  parties. 

3°.  The  point  at  issue  was  the  Nicene  definition  of  the 
Son's  relation  to  the  Father  as  expressed  by  the  term  homoou- 
sios.  Hence  in  the  minds  of  the  parties  opposed  to  the  Council 
it  was  not  the  true  divinity  of  Christ  that  was  on  trial.  Ex 
cepting  the  small  Arian  contingent,  that  was  in  principle 
accepted  and  defended  by  all. 

4°.  In  fact,  however,  the  controversy  was  not  a  Us  de  verbis, 
a  mere  quibbling  about  words;  because  the  terms  substituted 
for  homoousios,  such  as  homoiousios,  and  homoios,  were 
intended  to  express  a  certain  subordination  and  inferiority  of 
the  Son  to  the  Father,  which  must  logically  and  objectively 
lead  to  a  denial  of  His  divinity,  whatever  was  the  view  and 
intention  of  those  by  whom  they  were  used.  For  if  the  Son 
is  not  equal  to  the  Father  in  His  Godhead,  He  is  simply  not 
God ;  although  He  be  said  to  be  of  a  like  substance,  or  simply 
like  the  Father.  God's  substance  or  essence  is  absolutely  sim 
ple  and  indivisible,  and  as  such  admits  of  no  multiplication  in 
individuals  of  the  same  species. 

5°.  At  the  same  time,  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  this 
leaning  towards  Subordinationism,  on  the  part  of  the  adver 
saries  of  the  Council,  was  very  much  accentuated  owing  to  an 
imperfect  and  undeveloped  terminology.  The  terms  signify 
ing  substance,  essence,  person,  were  used  indiscriminately  now 
in  the  one  sense  and  then  in  the  other.  Hence  when  the 
homoousians  said  that  the  Son  was  of  the  same  ousia  as 
the  Father,  meaning  thereby  that  He  was  of  the  same  essence 
or  substance,  the  homoiousians  or  homoians  would  in  many 


NATURE  OF  THE  ARIAN  CONTROVERSY      239 

instances  take  this  to  signify  that  He  was  the  same  person 
as  the  Father.  For  the  Arianizing  or  Eusebian  party  could 
never  boast  of  many  trained  theologians;  it  consisted  mainly 
of  men  whose  ideas  were  vague  and  whose  talk  was  propor 
tionately  loud.  What  they  dreaded  most  was  the  bugbear 
of  Sabellianism,  which  had  deprived  the  Word  of  His  distinct 
personality :  this  must  be  beaten  down  at  all  costs. 

6°.  The  dissension  was  mostly  in  the  ranks  of  bishops  and 
priests ;  it  affected  the  laity  very  little.  The  dissenting  clerics 
had,  of  course,  a  certain  following  among  the  common  people, 
but  that  was  owing  to  personal  rather  than  to  doctrinal  rea 
sons.  Still  it  is  not  true,  as  seems  to  have  been  the  personal 
view  of  Cardinal  Newman,2  that  the  episcopate  went  astray 
whilst  the  laity  remained  faithful.  That  view  is  altogether 
inaccurate.  The  episcopate  did  not  go  astray,  although  many 
bishops  did.  It  must  be  remembered  that  very  many  of  the 
Arianizing  bishops  had  been  raised  to  the  episcopate  for  the 
purpose  of  strengthening  the  party.  They  were  not  bishops 
who  seceded  from  the  Catholic  Church.  Her  bishops,  as  a 
body,  ever  remained  faithful  to  her  traditional  teaching  and 
to  the  Nicene  Creed. 

7°.  The  bishops  and  priests  of  the  Arianizing  party  were, 
as  a  whole,  an  heterogeneous  collection;  gathered  together  in 
haste  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  moment.  Really  learned 
men  among  them  were  few,  and  few  also  were  the  men  dis 
tinguished  for  their  Christian  virtue.  They  were  mostly 
court-prelates,  who  sought  their  own  interests  rather  than  that 
of  the  faith.  There  were,  of  course,  exceptions,  but  excep 
tions  can  only  confirm  the  rule.  Eusebius  of  Csesarea  in 
Palestine  was  a  man  of  wide  reading,  even  of  vast  erudition, 
but  every  student  of  history  knows  that  he  was  but  a  shallow 
theologian  and  forever  courting  the  favor  of  the  Emperor. 
Meletius  of  Lycopolis,  and  afterwards  of  Antioch,  was  a  holy 
man,  but  although  he  caused  endless  trouble  during  this  con 
troversy,  he  was  at  heart  always  a  staunch  Catholic. 

8°.  Much  of  the  bitterness  of  the  controversy  was  owing 

2  Cf  r.  The  Arians  of  the  Fourth  Century,  c.  5,  s.  I.  Further  discussion 
in  Appendix,  note  5. 


240    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

to  the  personal  element  injected  into  it  by  the  enemies  of 
Athanasius.  The  friends  of  Arius  could  never  forgive  him 
the  part  he  had  played  at  Nicaea.  Plots  and  counterplots  were 
devised  to  disgrace  him  with  the  Emperor,  and  the  Eusebians 
succeeded  in  having  him  banished  five  times  before  the  con 
troversy  was  ended. 

9°.  The  temporary  success  of  the  Arianizing  party  was 
almost  entirely  due  to  the  favor  they  enjoyed  at  court.  Backed 
up  by  Constantius  and  Valens  they  swept  everything  before 
them;  left  to  themselves  by  Julian  the  Apostate  and  Jovian 
the  Catholic  they  sank  into  insignificance.  Their  strength  was 
wholly  adventitious  and  in  no  sense  inherent  in  their  cause. 

10°.  Lastly,  therefore,  the  wEole  trouble  may  be  laid  at 
the  door  of  Erastianism,  although  Thomas  Erastus  was  still 
hidden  in  the  womb  of  the  future.  Had  the  Emperors,  Con- 
stantine  included,  confined  their  attention  to  the  civil  interests 
of  the  State,  future  history  would  have  had  little  to  tell  about 
the  Arian  controversy.  A  certain  reaction  there  would  have 
been  after  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  supposing  that  the  Council 
had  been  summoned  at  all,  but  a  few  years  of  patient  endeavor 
on  the  part  of  the  Church  would  have  won  back  the  dissenting 
party  to  the  unity  of  the  faith.  This  she  effected  in  the  case 
of  Montanism,  Novatianism,  and  other  Isms,  before  Arianism 
ever  saw  the  light  of  day. 

C  —  AN  OUTLINE  OF  THE  ARIAN  CONTROVERSY 

With  the  foregoing  facts  clearly  fixed  in  mind,  it  may  be 
possible  to  form  a  more  or  less  intelligent  view  of  the  con 
fusion  and  strife  that  filled  the  years  intervening  between  the 
death  of  Constantine,  in  337,  and  the  convening  of  the  second 
General  Council  at  Constantinople,  in  381.  Only  the  merest 
outline  can  here  be  given,  and  even  this  must  be  limited  to 
matters  that  have  in  some  way  a  bearing  on  dogma.  For 
a  full  account  some  reliable  Church  History  must  be  con 
sulted. 

The  most  striking  feature  of  the  controversy  was  the  seem 
ingly  insatiable  desire  manifested  by  the  Arianizing  party  for 
new  symbols  of  faith.  Of  these  at  least  a  dozen  different 


OUTLINE  OF  THE  ARIAN  CONTROVERSY 


241 


forms  were  drawn  up  and  proposed  for  universal  acceptance, 
nearly  all  of  them  being  devised  for  the  twofold  purpose  of 
safeguarding  the  divinity  of  Christ  and  of  eliminating  the 
obnoxious  terms  homoousios  and  of  the  essence  of  the  Father. 
Excepting  the  "  Blasphemy  of  Sirmium,"  so  called  because  in 
it  Christ  is  denied  to  be  true  God,  none  of  them  was  openly 
heretical  so  far  as  positive  doctrine  came  in  question;  but 
they  were  all  so  vague  in  concept  and  terminology  that  they 
admitted  of  almost  any  interpretation  a  person  might  feel 
inclined  to  put  upon  them,  and  for  this  very  reason  they  were 
under  the  circumstances  unacceptable  to  all  parties. 

During  the  first  few  years  of  the  conflict  Rome  adopted  a 
waiting  policy,  persuaded  that  a  hasty  intervention  would  be 
likely  to  intensify  the  dissension.  But  in  October,  341,  Pope 
Julius  called  a  council  at  Rome,  hoping  to  bring  about  an 
understanding  between  the  dissenting  parties.  It  was  a  com 
parative  failure  from  the  very  beginning.  Most  of  the  Eastern 
bishops  pleaded  that  under  the  circumstances  they  could  not 
come,  and  of  the  Western  only  some  fifty  attended.  However 
the  meeting  proceeded  to  investigate  the  case  of  Athanasius 
and  Marcellus,  both  of  whom  had  been  deposed  by  Eastern 
synods.  They  were  found  to  be  innocent  of  the  charges  pre 
ferred  against  them,  and  their  claims  to  be  reinstated  in  their 
respective  sees  were  recognized.  Then  the  Pope  sent  a  severe 
reprimand  to  the  Eusebians  for  having  dared  to  depose  the 
Patriarch  of  Alexandria  without  first  notifying  Rome,  "  as 
had  been  the  custom." 

The  Eastern  bishops  received  this  rebuke  in  silence,  but  they 
gave  no  evidence  that  they  were  influenced  by  it  in  their  ac 
tions.  It  was  about  this  time  that  the  Dedication  Council  was 
held  at  Antioch,  where  some  ninety  bishops  had  gathered  for 
the  purpose  of  dedicating  the  great  basilica,  called  the  Golden 
•Church,  begun  by  Constantine  and  completed  by  Constantius. 
These  bishops  were  nearly  all  orthodox,  and  they  issued  twenty- 
five  disciplinary  canons,  which  were  afterwards  received  by 
the  Church.  The  first  of  these  emphasizes  the  necessity  of 
observing  the  decree  of  "  the  holy  and  great  Council  of 
Nicsea."  Three  symbols  of  the  faith  were  also  presented,  all 


242 


FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 


of  which  set  aside  the  homoousios  and  condemned  Arianism 
strictly  so  called.  It  was  on  this  occasion  that  the  watch 
words  of  Semi-Arianism,  homoiousios  and  homoios,  were 
officially  introduced. 

The  following  year  another  attempt  was  made  by  the  Pope 
to  settle  the  dispute,  and  this  time  the  dissenters  agreed 
to  appear  at  a  council  where  all  parties  should  be  represented. 
This  initial  success  was  largely  owing  to  Constans,  the  Catholic 
Emperor  of  the  West,  who  prevailed  on  his  brother  Constan- 
tius  to  facilitate  the  convening  of  the  Council.  Hence  in  the 
autumn  of  342  or  343,  about  eighty  bishops,  headed  by  Hosius 
of  Cordova  and  the  two  Roman  priests  Archidamus  and 
Philoxenus,  gathered  at  Sardica,  the  present  Sofia.  About 
half  of  them  came  from  Greek  and  Latin  Illyricum,  whilst  the 
others  were  from  different  parts  of  the  West  properly  so 
called.  Nearly  an  equal  number  came  from  the  East,  led  by 
the  Eusebians  Basil  of  Ancyra,  Acacius  of  Csesarea,  and  Maris 
of  Chalcedon.  But  when  they  saw  that  Athanasius,  Marcel- 
lus,  and  Asclepas,  all  deposed  by  Eastern  synods,  were  treated 
by  the  Western  party  as  lawful  incumbents  of  the  sees  from 
which  they  had  been  driven  by  violence,  they  refused  to  take 
part  in  the  deliberation  of  the  Council.  Their  protests,  how 
ever,  were  not  heeded  by  the  Western  bishops,  and  so  they 
withdrew  to  Philopopolis  in  Thrace,  where  they  held  a  council 
of  their  own.  They  drew  up  a  new  symbol,  in  which  they 
condemned  the  Sabellians  and  all  those  who  taught  that  the 
Father  did  not  beget  the  Son  by  His  will.  This  condemnation 
was  aimed  at  Marcellus  of  Ancyra  and  Photinus  of  Sirmium, 
who  were  accused  by  the  Eusebians  of  denying  the  personal 
distinction  of  the  Son  from  the  Father.  Photinus  was  after 
wards  deposed  by  the  Catholic  party,  as  he  was  evidently 
heterodox  in  his  views. 

Meanwhile  the  Council  of  Sardica  held  its  session.  It  re 
stored  Athanasius  and  Marcellus  to  their  sees,  deposed  the 
leaders  of  the  Eusebians,  and  drew  up  twenty  canons.  A 
new  symbol  seems  also  to  have  been  composed,  but  it  was  never 
promulgated.  The  most  important  of  the  canons  are  those 
relating  to  the  condemnation  and  deposition  of  bishops.  Such 


OUTLINE  OF  THE  ARIAN  CONTROVERSY      243 

measures,  it  is  enacted,  cannot  be  taken  except  by  the  assembled 
bishops  of  the  province  to  which  the  accused  person  belongs. 
Then,  if  he  is  not  satisfied  with  the  decision  thus  given,  his 
judges  must  send  the  case  to  the  Pope,  who  shall  decide 
whether  there  is  need  of  revision.  Finally,  if  the  Pope  decides 
there  is  such  need,  he  himself  shall  appoint  the  judges  of 
appeal.  This  legislation  was  evidently  intended  to  prevent  the 
recurrence  of  what  had  happened  in  the  case  of  Athanasius 
and  Marcellus.  Later  on  the  canons  in  question  were  some 
times  quoted  as  Nicene,  either  through  mistake,  or  more  prob 
ably  because  the  Council  of  Sardica  came  soon  to  be  looked 
upon  as  an  appendix  of  Nicsea. 

After  the  Council  of  Sardica  was  dissolved,  the  controversy 
went  on  as  before.  Bishops  met  in  synod,  abused  their  oppo 
nents,  drew  up  new  symbols  to  win  them  over  to  their  side, 
and  then  continued  the  controversy.  In  345  the  Eusebians 
held  a  synod  at  Antioch  and  drew  up  the  symbol  known  as 
the  Macrostich,  because  of  its  interminable  prolixity.  In  it 
they  declared  the  Son  to  be  of  the  hypostasis,  or  substance, 
of  the  Father;  perfect  and  true  God  by  nature,  united  to  the 
Father  without  an  interval  of  separation,  and  possessing  with 
Him  only  one  dignity;  yet  also  subordinate  to  the  Father, 
being  begotten  by  Him  spontaneously  and  voluntarily. 

Matters  grew  considerably  worse  when,  on  the  death  of 
Constans  in  350,  the  Arianizing  Constantius  became  sole 
Emperor.  Then  the  Antinicseans  made  a  supreme  effort  to 
bring  all  the  world  to  their  way  of  thinking.  Synods  were 
held  successively  at  Sirmium,  Aries,  Milan,  Beziers,  Rimini, 
and  Seleucia,  at  all  of  which  their  party  triumphed,  though 
by  physical  coercion  of  the  opposing  bishops  rather  than  by 
force  of  argument.  At  the  two  last  named  synods,  that  of 
Rimini  and  Seleucia,  nearly  all  Catholic  and  moderate  Semi- 
Arian  bishops  present  were  induced  by  fraud  and  force  to 
sign  a  noncommittal  symbol,  and  this  was  flaunted  in  the  eyes 
of  the  world  as  an  Arian  victory.  It  was  in  reference  to  this 
that  St.  Jerome  wrote  the  words  so  often  misapplied  and 
misinterpreted  by  later  historians :  "  Ingemuit  totus  orbis  et 
se  esse  Arianum  miratus  est."  The  world  had  indeed  reason 


244    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

to  marvel,  for  it  was  no  more  Arian  than  it  had  ever  been,  all 
forced  signatures  of  bishops  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

Whilst  the  Arianizing  party  was  thus  apparently  making 
rapid  progress,  it  at  the  same  time  began  to  disintegrate. 
About  two  years  before  the  synods  of  Rimini  and  Seleucia,  in 
357,  during  a  visit  of  Constantius  to  Sirmium,  Ursacius  of 
Singidunum,  Valens  of  Mursa,  Germinicius  of  Sirmium,  and 
Potamius  of  Lisbon,  drew  up  a  symbol,  or  rather  a  theological 
document,  which  became  known  as  the  "  Blasphemy."  Both 
homoousios  and  homoiousios  were  rejected;  the  Son  was  de 
clared  inferior  to  the  Father  in  honor,  dignity,  and  majesty, 
and  also  subject  to  Him;  thus  making  Him  in  fact  a  creature. 
This  occasioned  a  threefold  division  in  the  party,  thereby  cre 
ating  an  extreme  left,  an  extreme  right,  and  a  center,  as  dis 
tinguished  from  one  another  by  their  theological  views. 

The  extreme  left  was  under  the  leadership  of  Aetius  of 
Antioch,  Eunomius  of  Cizicus,  and  Eudoxius  of  Constanti 
nople.  God,  they  said,  is  essentially  simple  and  one;  unbe- 
gotten  and  not  produced.  Hence  any  being  begotten  or  pro 
duced  cannot  be  God;  can  be  neither  homoousios,  nor  homoi 
ousios,  nor  homoios,  but  is  necessarily  anomoios.  The 
Son,  therefore,  since  He  is  produced,  is  physically  anomoios 
or  unlike  the  Father,  although  He  is  morally  homoios  or  like 
Him.  The  Holy  Ghost,  like  all  other  created  beings,  is  a 
creature  of  the  Son.  The  followers  of  this  party  are  known  in 
history  as  the  Anomoeans,  or  New  Arians?  who  revived  the 
Arianism  of  earlier  days  which  had  fallen  into  general  dis 
repute. 

The  extreme  right  was  led  by  Basil  of  Ancyra,  who  had 
been  intruded  into  the  see  of  Marcellus.  It  was  made  up 
of  Semi-Arians  and  a  certain  number  of  orthodox  bishops  who 
somehow  distrusted  Athanasius  and  his  formulas.  Their 
watchword  was  homoiousios,  as  they  held  the  Son  to  be  like 
the  Father  in  substance.  Some  of  the  party  denied  the  divinity 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  whilst  others  were  more  or  less  noncom 
mittal  on  that  point.  Strictly  speaking  it  was  this  denial  of 
the  Godhead  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  earned  for  them  the  name 
of  Semi-Arians;  for  they  all  admitted  the  true  divinity  of 


OUTLINE  OF  THE  ARIAN  CONTROVERSY 


245 


the  Son,  although  they  were  opposed  to  the  definition  of 
Nicaea. 

The  center,  with  leanings  to  both  extremes,  was  captained 
by  Acacius  of  Caesarea  in  Palestine,  who  had  succeeded  the 
erudite  Eusebius.  It  was  largely  an  heterogeneous  collection 
of  makeshift  bishops,  who  were  actuated  in  their  contention  as 
much  by  political  as  by  theological  motives.  Their  motto  was 
homoios.  The  Son,  they  maintained,  was  simply  like  the 
Father,  according  to  Scripture,  without  any  reference  to  sub 
stance  or  essence.  In  history  they  go  under  the  name  of 
Homoeans  or  Acacians. 

It  was  about  this  time,  357  or  358,  that  the  reputed  falls 
of  Hosius  of  Cordova  and  Pope  Liberius  occurred.  Hosius, 
who  was  then  almost  a  hundred  years  old,  was  after  protracted 
ill  treatment  and  torture  prevailed  upon  to  sign  the  "  Blas 
phemy  of  Sirium,"  although  he  could  not  be  induced  to  turn 
against  Athanasius.  On  his  deathbed  he  protested  that  he 
signed  against  his  will,  and  he  died  in  full  communion  with 
the  Church. 

Liberius  became  Pope  in  352.  He  was  a  very  saintly  man, 
and  bore  persecution  with  unflinching  courage.  Since  355 
he  had  been  living  in  exile  at  Bersea,  and  had  been  supplanted 
at  Rome  by  the  anti-Pope  Feliz  II.  Wearied  almost  to  death 
by  the  unceasing  argumentations  of  his  keeper,  Bishop  Demo- 
philus,  he  was  brought  to  Sirmium,  where  he  is  said  to  have 
signed  a  document  which  stated  that  he  severed  all  connection 
with  Athanasius,  and  to  have  accepted  a  formula  of  faith 
which  omitted  the  homoousios.  The  formula  was  not  hereti 
cal  but  vague.  The  historian  Sozomen  states  that  Liberius  at 
the  time  openly  declared  that  he  considered  as  strangers  to 
the  Church  all  those  who  denied  that  "  the  Son  is  like  the 
Father  in  substance  —  nay,  in  everything."  Whatever  be  the 
truth  about  his  supposed  weakness,  the  fact  remains  that  on 
his  return  to  Rome  he  was  never  reproached  with  it,  though 
the  Romans  stood  solidly  for  the  faith  of  Nicaea,  and  after 
his  death  he  was  universally  venerated  as  a  saint. 

Finally  the  real  cause  of  all  this  trouble,  the  dogmatizing 
Emperor  Constantius,  was  called  to  his  account  on  November 


246    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

3,  361.  With  his  death  the  Antinicene  agitation  lost  its  force. 
It  had  been  thrust  upon  the  world  by  a  comparatively  small 
number  of  court-prelates,  whose  persistent  efforts  were  made 
effective  by  the  militant  support  of  their  imperial  patron. 
Under  Julian  the  Apostate  (361-363)  and  his  Catholic  succes 
sor  Jovian  (363-364),  a  reaction  towards  orthodoxy  set  in, 
which,  though  somewhat  checked  during  the  reign  of  the  Arian 
Valens  (364-367),  finally  triumphed  under  Theodosius, 
through  whose  efforts  the  Second  General  Council  was  con 
vened  at  Constantinople  in  381.  The  pacification  had,  how 
ever,  already  been  going  on  with  excellent  results  for  several 
years  past. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

THE  MACEDONIAN  AND  APOLLINARIAN  HERESIES:    THE 
SECOND  GENERAL  COUNCIL  * 

Theodosius  was  baptized  soon  after  his  accession  to  the 
throne,  in  379,  and  immediately  set  about  the  work  of  pro 
curing  religious  unity  in  his  dominions.  The  pacification  of 
the  contending  parties  had  been  proceeding  satisfactorily  for 
some  years  past,  owing  largely  to  the  prudent  moderation  of 
the  Catholic  bishops  who  exerted  themselves  everywhere  to 
lead  the  dissenters  back  to  the  fold.  Pope  Damasus,  Hilary 
of  Poitiers,  Eusebius  of  Vercelli,  Athanasius  of  Alexandria, 
Basil  of  Csesarea  in  Cappadocia,  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  Gregory 
of  Nyssa,  and  Amphilochius  of  Iconium,  were  all  staunch  de 
fenders  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  but  at  the  same  time  they  had 
the  good  sense  to  make  the  conditions  of  reconciliation  as  easy 
as  was  consistent  with  orthodox  belief.  Those  who  were 
willing  to  accept  the  Symbol  of  Nicsea,  condemn  Arianism,  and 
acknowledge  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  were  admitted  to 
communion  if  otherwise  well  disposed.  A  series  of  synods, 
held  in  different  countries,  gave  permanent  and  universal  ef 
fect  to  the  work  of  these  individual  bishops.  As  a  result,  the 
disaffected  communities  in  Gaul  and  Italy,  practically  the  whole 
of  Asia  Minor,  Egypt,  and  Syria,  were  gradually  won  over 
to  the  orthodox  faith.  Only  Constantinople  and  some  of  the 
neighboring  provinces  still  clung  to  their  heretical  tenets. 

Excellent  though  these  results  were,  they  did  not  quite  sat 
isfy  Theodosius.  The  work,  he  thought,  proceeded  too  slowly. 
Like  most  fervent  neophytes,  he  had  more  zeal  than  discre 
tion  ;  and  hence  on  February  27,  380,  he  issued  an  edict  that 

1  Cfr.  Hefele,  History  of  the  isme;  *  Bethune-Baker,  An  Intro- 
Councils,  II,  340-374,  Eng.  Transl.  duction  to  the  Early  History  of 
ist  Edit.  Tixeront,  H.  D.  II,  59-66;  Christian  Doctrine,  239-254;  Her- 
Ibid.  94-1 1 1 ;  Voisin,  L'Apollinar-  genroether,  op.  cit  I,  384-391. 

247 


248    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

all  must  profess  the  religion  which  "  the  Apostle  Peter  taught 
the  Romans  in  the  days  of  old,  and  which  is  now  followed  by 
Pope  Damasus,  and  also  by  Peter  of  Alexandria,  a  man  of 
Apostolic  sanctity."  However,  he  soon  found  that  his  per 
emptory  edict  counted  for  little  with  those  who  were  not  al 
ready  disposed  to  return  to  the  unity  of  faith.  Moreover  his 
reference  to  Pope  Damasus  and  Peter  of  Alexandria  was  a 
decided  -faux  pas,  as  neither  of  them  was  liked  by  the  Orien 
tals.  His  next  step,  therefore,  was  to  gather  together  in  a 
great  council  the  episcopate  of  the  Eastern  Empire,  prudently 
refraining  from  inviting  the  bishops  of  the  West. 

The  way  for  holding  the  Council  at  Constantinople  had  been 
prepared  by  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  nominally  bishop  of 
Sasima,  who  had  for  some  time  past  been  preaching  his  famous 
sermons  on  the  Trinity  in  the  chapel  of  the  Anastasis. 
Whether  or  not  all  the  Eastern  bishops  received  an  invitation 
is  a  matter  of  conjecture,  but  only  186  appeared  at  the  Council. 
Meletius  of  Antioch  was  appointed  president,  but  he  died 
before  the  work  had  well  begun.  He  was  succeeded  by 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  who  had  meanwhile  been  chosen  bishop 
of  Constantinople.  Gregory,  however,  always  of  a  vacillating 
disposition,  soon  resigned  both  the  presidency  of  the  Council 
and  his  episcopal  see,  and  was  in  his  turn  succeeded  by  Nec- 
tarius,  an  imperial  official  and  still  a  catechumen,  who  was  in 
quick  succession  baptized,  ordained  priest,  and  consecrated 
bishop  for  the  vacant  see.  Under  his  presidency,  which  how 
ever  seems  to  have  been  merely  an  honorary  one,  the  Council 
concluded  its  work. 

This  work  was  primarily  concerned  with  the  suppression  of 
Arianism,  but  not  exclusively  so;  for  whilst  the  Arian  con 
troversy  was  going  on  two  other  heresies  sprang  up,  one  of 
which  denied  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  other 
asserted  that  Christ  as  man  had  only  a  sensitive  soul.  During 
the  confusion  of  the  preceding  years  these  vagaries  had  been 
more  or  less  overlooked,  although  Athanasius  and  others  had 
written  against  them,  but  now  they  called  for  an  authoritative 
condemnation  on  the  part  of  the  council. 

The  first  of  these  heresies  was  necessarily  included  in  strict 


THE  SECOND  GENERAL  COUNCIL  249 

Arianism,  but  shortly  after  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century 
it  began  to  be  broached  by  the  Semi-Arians  as  well.  Athana- 
sius  refuted  it  thoroughly  in  three  letters  addressed  to  Sera- 
pion,  bishop  of  Thmuis,  in  whose  diocese  it  was  then  making 
considerable  stir.  About  the  same  time  it  was  propagated  in 
Asia  Minor  by  Marathonius  of  Nicomedia,  and  thence  found 
its  way  to  Constantinople  and  the  neighboring  provinces. 
Historically  this  heresy  is  commonly  called  Macedonianism, 
after  Macedonius,  who  was  then  bishop  of  Constantinople, 
although  he  does  not  seem  to  have  had  any  connection  with  it. 
Its  defenders  were  termed  Pneumatomachoi,  because  they  were 
fighting  against  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  in  one  of  his  sermons  preached  about 
380,  refers  to  it  as  follows :  "  Some  have  held  the  'Holy 
Spirit  to  be  an  energy,  others  a  creature,  others  God.  Others 
again  have  not  decided  which  of  these  He  is,  out  of  reverence, 
as  they  say,  for  the  Scriptures,  because  they  lay  down  nothing 
precise  upon  the  point.  On  this  account  they  neither  concede 
to  Him  divine  veneration,  nor  do  they  refuse  Him  honor; 
thus  keeping  in  their  disposition  concerning  Him  to  some  sort 
of  middle  way,  which,  however,  is  in  effect  a  very  wretched 
way.  Of  those,  on  the  other  hand,  who  have  held  Him  to 
be  God,  some  keep  this  as  a  pious  opinion  to  themselves,  whilst 
others  have  the  courage  to  express  their  belief  openly.  Others 
I  have  heard  in  some  kind  of  way  mete  out  the  deity,  being 
more  wise  in  so  far  as  they  conceive  and  acknowledge  the 
three  as  we  do,  but  at  the  same  time  maintain  a  great  dis 
tinction  between  them,  to  the  effect  that  the  one  is  infinite  both 
in  respect  of  being  and  of  power,  the  second  in  respect  of 
power  but  not  of  being,  the  third  circumscribed  in  both  of 
these  relations."  2  After  this  exposition  of  the  various  views 
concerning  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  proceeds  to  prove  His  true 
divinity  as  professed  by  Catholics,  drawing  his  arguments 
chiefly  from  Holy  Scripture. 

The  second  heresy,  referred  to  above,  was  started  about 
360  by  Apollinaris  the  Younger,  bishop  of  Laodicea,  a  man 

20rat.  31,  5. 


250    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

of  high  culture  and  undoubted  theological  learning.  The  dif 
ficulty  that  presented  itself  to  him  was  the  unity  of  person  in 
Christ.  If  Christ  has  two  perfect  natures,  the  one  human  and 
the  other  divine,  as  Catholics  profess  to  believe,  how  is  He 
only  one  person?  A  union  that  is  so  perfect  as  to  result  in 
unity  of  person  necessarily  presupposes  that  at  least  one  of 
the  component  parts  is  in  itself  capable  of  being  physically 
perfected  by  its  union  with  the  other.  Now  Christ  was  truly 
God  Incarnate,  truly  a  divine  person  become  man;  for  else 
He  could  not  have  wrought  our  redemption,  since  only  a  God 
could  save  the  fallen  race.  Nor  did  His  divine  person  admit 
of  being  perfected,  as  God  is  absolutely  perfect  and  unchange 
able;  hence  His  human  nature  must  have  been  lacking  some 
perfection  which  was  supplied  by  the  Word.  What  was  this 
perfection? 

Following  the  teaching  of  Plato,  Apollinaris  tried  to  solve 
the  problem  by  assuming  three  constitutive  elements  in  man: 
the  body,  the  soul,  and  the  spirit.  The  body,  of  course,  is  the 
purely  material  element;  the  soul  is  the  principle  of  life  and 
sensation;  the  spirit  is  the  rational  part  of  man,  the  controlling 
and  determining  principle  of  his  being.  Now  Christ's  hu 
manity  evidently  comprised  the  first  two  elements,  the  body 
and  the  soul ;  but  the  third,  the  spirit  or  the  rational  soul,  might, 
he  thought,  well  be  supplied  by  the  Word.  And  this  seemed 
all  the  more  necessary  as  otherwise  the  God-Man  would  have 
possessed  a  finite  principle  of  intellectual  and  moral  action, 
which,  it  appeared  to  him,  could  not  be  admitted  without  im 
piety;  because  this  finite  principle,  this  spirit  or  rational  soul, 
would  be  a  source  of  conflict  and  a  predisposition  to  sin. 
Hence  whilst  Christ  was  perfect  God,  He  was  perfect  man 
only  in  so  far  as  He  had  a  human  body  and  a  sensitive  soul.3 
As  God  He  was  indeed  consubstantial  with  the  Father,  but  as 
man  He  was  not  consubstantial  with  us  —  He  lacked  the  very 
element  that  makes  man  a  man,  the  rational  soul. 

This  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  teaching  of  Apollinaris, 
as  gathered  from  the  fragments  of  his  works  and  from  the 

3Cfr.  Greg.  Naz.  Epp.  101,  102;      Athan.  Adv.  Apoll. ;  Epiphan.  Adv. 
Greg.   Nys.  Antirrhet,  adv.  Apoll. ;      Haer.  77. 


THE  SECOND  GENERAL  COUNCIL 


251 


writings  of  his  adversaries.  It  was  obviously  destructive  of 
the  true  humanity  of  Christ,  and  as  soon  as  it  became  known 
it  was  vigorously  attacked  and  unhesitatingly  condemned  by 
individual  bishops  and  by  synods.  At  first,  indeed,  many  re 
fused  to  believe  that  Apollinaris  really  held  these  erroneous 
views,  because  he  was  a  staunch  defender  of  the  Nicene  Creed 
and  in  every  way  an  excellent  man;  but  when  Vitalis,  one  of 
his  disciples,  came  to  Rome,  in  375,  to  clear  himself  of  the 
charge  of  heresy,  and  then  refused  to  acknowledge  that  the 
Son  of  God  assumed  in  the  Incarnation  a  complete  human 
nature,  "  corpus,  animam,  sensum,  id  est,  integrum  Adam,  et, 
ut  expressius  dicam,  totum  veterem  nostrum  sine  peccato 
hominem,"  as  Pope  Damasus  worded  it,  a  definite  condemna 
tion  was  pronounced,  and  when  informed  of  this  Apollinaris 
broke  with  the  Church. 

These  three  heresies,  therefore,  Arianism  in  its  various 
forms,  Macedonianism,  and  Apollinarianism,  although  all  of 
them  had  already  been  condemned,  came  before  the  Council 
that  was  gathered  at  Constantinople.  Most  of  the  discussions, 
however,  seem  to  have  been  occupied  with  Macedonianism, 
which  was  strongly  defended  by  some  sixty  bishops  infected 
with  the  heresy.  No  agreement  was  reached,  and  so  the  coun 
cil  finally  proceeded  to  pronounce  condemnation. 

All  we  have  left  of  the  work  of  this  Council  is  gathered  up 
in  four  canons.  The  first  of  these  proclaims  once  more  the 
faith  of  Nicsea  and  anathematizes  all  heresy,  mentioning 
by  name  the  Eunomians,  the  Arians  or  Eudoxians,  the  Semi- 
Arians  or  Pneumatomachoi,  the  Sabellians,  Marcellians,  Pho- 
tinians,  and  Apollinarians.  The  second  forbids  prelates  to 
meddle  with  the  affairs  of  other  civil  "  dioceses  "  than  their 
own.  The  third  gives  to  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  the 
preeminence  of  honor  after  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  "  because 
Constantinople  is  a  New  Rome.''  The  fourth  decided  the  case 
of  Maximus  the  Cynic,  who  had  been  unlawfully  consecrated 
bishop  of  Constantinople;  all  his  ordinations  were  declared  null 
and  void.4 

4Mansi,    3,    557. 


252          FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

The  Council  did  not  draw  up  a  new  symbol  of  the  faith. 
It  seems,  however,  that  the  assembled  bishops  adopted,  with 
a  few  modifications,  the  baptismal  creed  of  the  church  of 
Jerusalem,  which  Epiphanius  had  published  some  years  before 
in  his  Ancoratus.  It  begins  with  the  Symbol  of  Nicsea,  to 
the  third  article  of  which,  "  And  in  the  Holy  Ghost,"  are  added 
the  following  words:  "Lord  and  Giver  of  life;  who  pro 
ceeds  from  the  Father,  is  adored  and  glorified  with  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  who  spoke  through  the  prophets."  Thus  it 
served  as  a  definition  against  the  Pneumatomachoi,  who  denied 
the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  Creed  was  recited  at 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  451,  and  a  little  later  was  received 
into  the  liturgy.  It  is  known  as  the  Nicene-Constantinopoli- 
tan  Creed.5 

As  Theodosius  vigorously  enforced  the  decisions  of  the 
Council,  the  various  forms  of  heresy  practically  disappeared 
from  the  territory  subject  to  his  rule.  But  meanwhile  Arian- 
ism  had  begun  to  infect  the  numerous  Teuton  tribes  that  were 
hovering  about  the  Northern  boundaries  of  the  Empire,  pre 
paring  to  overrun  the  whole  civilized  West.  It  was  not  until 
two  and  three  centuries  later  that  they  were  won  over  to 
orthodox  Christianity.  However,  among  them  it  assumed 
from  the  first  a  political  rather  than  a  doctrinal  aspect.  The 
Macedonians  disappeared  with  the  Arians,  but  the  followers 
of  Apollinaris  maintained  scattered  communities  in  the  Empire 
till  the  fifth  century,  when  some  of  them  were  won  back  to 
the  faith  whilst  the  rest  joined  the  Eutychian  or  Monophysite 
sects. 

Thus  from  325  to  381,  three  dogmas  of  the  faith  were 
thoroughly  discussed,  solemnly  defined,  and  universally  ac 
cepted  by  those  who  claimed  communion  with  the  Church  — 
the  true  divinity  of  the  Son,  the  true  divinity  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  the  perfect  humanity  of  Christ.  In  these  dogmas 
others  are  implicitly  contained  and  at  least  indirectly  defined, 
as  the  oneness  of  God,  the  personal  distinction  of  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  doctrine  of  one  person 

6  Ibid.  3,  565 ;  cfr.  Funk,  Manual  of  Church  History,  I.  143. 


THE  SECOND  GENERAL  COUNCIL 

and  two  natures  in  the  God-Man.  As  was  pointed  out  in 
the  preceding  chapters,  all  these  truths  were  taught  by  the 
Church  long  before  the  first  General  Council  was  convened 
at  Nicsea;  hence  nothing  new  was  added  to  the  faith,  but  the 
same  old  faith  was  thus  presented  in  a  fuller  and  clearer  light. 
In  regard  to  this  last  point  St.  Athanasius  makes  a  very 
pertinent  remark,  when  writing  about  the  Council  of  Nicaea. 
"  When  the  Fathers  came  to  the  paschal  question,"  he  states, 
"  they  said,  '  It  is  decreed ' ;  but  when  they  declared  the  faith, 
they  did  not  say,  '  It  is  decreed ' ;  they  said,  '  Thus  believeth 
the  Catholic  Church,'  and  immediately  they  confessed  what 
they  believed,  thus  indicating  that  they  did  not  set  forth  a 
new  doctrine,  but  that  which  had  been  received  from  the 
Apostles."  6 

6  Epist.  De  Syn.  5. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

THE   ESSENCE   AND   ATTRIBUTES   OF  GOD:    THE  BLESSED 

TRINITY 

From  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  on,  theological  litera 
ture  becomes  so  voluminous  that  it  is  impossible  to  attempt 
anything  like  an  analysis  of  the  works  of  the  different  authors, 
as  was  done  in  the  chapters  dealing  with  Antenicene  theology. 
Hence  it  seems  advisable  to  take  up  the  various  points  of 
doctrine  as  they  are  usually  treated  in  modern  theological 
text-books,  indicating  briefly  what  was  held  concerning  them 
in  successive  centuries  until  their  full  development  was  reached. 
It  will  not,  however,  be  possible  to  observe  always  the  same 
order  of  sequence,  since  development  of  doctrine  depends  to 
a  considerable  extent  on  the  rise  of  heresies.  Still  as  far  as 
convenient  this  general  plan  will  be  followed,  as  it  appears 
best  adapted  to  bring  out  the  connection  between  the  different 
points  that  come  up  for  consideration. 

A  —  THE  ESSENCE  AND  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD 

The  Trinitarian  discussions  of  the  fourth  century  neces 
sarily  involved  many  concepts  that  called  for  definite  doctrinal 
statements  concerning  the  essence  and  attributes  of  the  divin 
ity.  In  fact,  it  was  his  false  concept  of  God's  essence  that 
led  Arius  into  his  Trinitarian  errors.  He  conceived  the 
eternal,  simple,  immutable  God  as  essentially  unbegotten,  so 
that  all  communication  of  God's  substance  by  way  of  genera 
tion  must  imply  a  contradiction  in  terms.  Thus  the  very 
essence  of  God  demands  that  all  His  productive  actions  be 
ad  extra,  terminating  in  beings  whose  essence  is  only  anal 
ogous  to  His  own.  He  can  create,  but  not  generate.  To 
wards  the  end  of  the  Arian  controversy  this  erroneous  view 
was  so  much  accentuated  that  Catholic  writers  found  it  neces- 

254 


GOD  AND  HIS  ATTRIBUTES  255 

sary  to  compose  formal  treatises  by  way  of  refutation.  It 
is  chiefly  in  these  that  the  Catholic  doctrine  on  the  subject 
in  question  is  fully  explained. 

The  Arian  leader  against  whom  these  treatises  were  prin 
cipally  directed  was  Eunomius  of  Cyzicus  in  Mysia,  more 
famed  for  his  sophistical  dialectics  than  for  his  knowledge  of 
theology.  He  looked  upon  Christ  as  a  pure  creature,  who, 
so  far  from  being  identical  with  God,  as  Catholics  held,  or 
like  God,  as  the  Semi-Arians  taught,  must  be  considered  as 
altogether  unlike  God,  or  anomoios.  Hence  his  followers 
were  usually  called  Anomceans.  To  this  conclusion  he  rea 
soned  from  the  fundamental  proposition  that  God  is  abso 
lutely  simple.  For  even  Catholics  admitted  the  simplicity  of 
God,  and  moreover  held  that  the  Father  at  least  was  un- 
begotten.  Hence  agennesia,  or  being  unbegotten,  must  in 
some  way  be  a  divine  attribute.  Now  in  a  God  who  is  abso 
lutely  simple  there  can  be  no  distinction  between  attributes  and 
essence,  and  therefore  agennesia,  is  the  very  essence  of 
God.  Consequently,  since  the  Word  is  said  to  be  begotten, 
that  can  only  mean  by  way  of  creation:  and  therefore  He  is 
a  pure  creature. 

From  this  same  fundamental  proposition  of  God's  absolute 
simplicity  he  reasoned  to  other  astounding  conclusions.  Thus 
a  God  who  is  absolutely  simple  cannot  be  a  God  of  mystery; 
hence  there  is  nothing  in  God  that  is  not  perfectly  known  and 
comprehended  by  the  human  intellect.  "  God,"  he  was  fond 
of  saying,  "  knows  no  more  about  His  own  substance  than  we 
do ;  nor  is  this  more  known  to  Him  or  less  to  us  :  but  whatever 
we  know  about  the  divine  substance,  that  precisely  is  known 
to  God.  On  the  other  hand,  whatever  He  knows,  the  same 
also  you  will  find  without  any  difference  in  us."  1  Thus  God 
is  practically  reduced  to  a  mere  abstraction,  whose  inmost 
nature  lies  unshrouded  before  the  casual  glance  of  the  human 
mind.  Not  only  shall  we  see  God  face  to  face  in  the  world 
to  come,  but  we  do  so  already  in  this  world. 

Against  these  and   similar  vagaries   Basil  the  Great  and 

1  Socrates,  Hist.  Eccle.  47. 


256    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

Gregory  of  Nyssa  wrote  their  treatises  entitled  Contra 
Eunomium,  in  course  of  which  they  also  explain  somewhat 
in  detail  the  traditional  teaching  of  the  Church  on  the  essence 
and  attributes  of  God.  Their  fundamental  position  is  that 
God's  essence  is  being  itself  —  not  being  in  the  abstract,  but 
in  its  very  fullness ;  nor  being  in  the  passive  sense,  but  as  the 
source  and  fountainhead  of  all  activity.  "  One  sign  of  true 
divinity,"  writes  Gregory,  "  is  shown  us  by  the  word  of  Holy 
Scripture,  which  Moses  learned  by  revelation  when  he  heard 
the  heavenly  voice  saying:  '  I  am  who  am.'  That,  therefore, 
alone,  we  think,  ought  to  be  considered  truly  divine,  whose 
existence  is  known  to  be  eternal  and  infinite ;  and  whatever  is 
perceived  in  this  being  is  always  the  same,  without  increment 
and  without  diminution."  2  This  idea  was  more  fully  de 
veloped  by  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  in  a  sermon  which  he  de 
livered  a  few  years  later. 

"  God,"  he  says,  "  always  was,  and  is,  and  will  be ;  or  rather 
He  always  is.  For  was  and  will  be  are  but  portions  of  our 
passing  time  and  changing  nature;  but  He  always  is,  and  by 
this  name  He  called  Himself  when  He  spoke  to  Moses  on  the 
mountain.  He  comprises  in  Himself  all  being,  which  has 
neither  beginning  nor  end,  and  in  essence  is  like  a  vast  and 
boundless  ocean,  surpassing  all  thought  of  time  and  nature. 
The  mind  alone  can  in  some  very  slight  and  very  obscure  way 
know  Him,  not  directly  from  the  attributes  of  His  being,  but 
from  the  things  that  are  outside  Him,  just  as  from  an  image 
one  can  derive  some  little  knowledge  of  the  original  —  a  knowl 
edge  which  escapes  one  before  it  is  firmly  grasped.  .  .  .  God 
therefore  is  immense,  and  difficult  to  contemplate;  the  fact  of 
His  immensity  alone  is  clearly  perceived/'  3 

Basil  puts  the  matter  in  practically  the  same  light.  "  The 
operations  of  God  are  various  and  many,  but  His  essence  is 
simple."  However,  "  when  we  say  that  God's  essence  is 
simple,  that  does  not  prevent  us  from  ascribing  to  Him  many 
different  attributes,  as  creative  power,  goodness,  justice, 
providence,  fore-knowledge,  all  so  many  qualities  which  deter- 

2  Cont.  Eunom.  8.  3  Orat.  43,  3. 


GOD  AND  HIS  ATTRIBUTES  257 

mine  in  some  way  the  one  essence  of  God."  4  Hence,  al 
though  we  cannot  comprehend  God's  essence  in  itself,  just 
because  it  is  simple  and  at  the  same  time  the  very  fullness 
of  being,  we  know  His  attributes  sufficiently  well  to  render 
Him  reasonable  service.  For  "  His  majesty  is  known  to  us, 
and  His  power,  and  His  wisdom,  and  His  goodness,  and  His 
providence  by  which  He  has  care  of  us,  and  the  justice  of  His 
judgments;  but  not  His  very  essence."  5 

In  direct  answer  to  Eunomius,  Gregory  of  Nyssa  points  out 
that  although  the  Godhead  as  such  is  simple  and  unbegotten, 
from  this  it  does  not  follow  that  the  two  properties  are  alto 
gether  identical.  Simplicity  is  one  thing  and  not  being  be 
gotten  is  another.  The  Son  is  also  simple,  without  parts, 
without  quantity,  without  composition ;  yet  He  is  begotten,  the 
Only-Begotten  of  the  Father.  He  is  an  individual,  a  person, 
who  possesses  the  Godhead,  although  derived  from  another. 
Of  course,  if  one  arbitrarily  assumes  that  the  essence  of  God, 
as  a  divine  person,  consists  in  the  fact  of  not  being  begotten, 
it  is  self-evident  that  the  Son  cannot  be  God;  but  this  is  beg 
ging  the  question.  Not  begotten  and  begotten,  as  affirmed 
of  the  Father  and  the  Son  respectively,  are  personal  distinc 
tions  in  the  Godhead;  they  do  not  indicate  any  difference  of 
essence  in  the  persons  of  whom  they  are  affirmed.6 

As  regards  the  relation  of  the  attributes  to  one  another  and 
to  the  divine  essence,  these  writers  hold  that  some  distinction 
must  be  admitted  between  them;  yet  this  distinction  is  not 
altogether  objective  and  real :  it  is  founded  upon  the  limitations 
of  the  human  intellect  and  the  infinite  perfection  of  God.  It 
is  KO.T*  iirivoutv,  a  mental  distinction,  to  which  there  is  some 
thing  corresponding  in  the  object,  but  not  in  the  same  way 
as  it  is  conceived  by  the  mind.7  The  mind  reasons  from  effect 
to  causes ;  it  infers  from  God's  operations  in  the  visible  world 
that  He  is  all-powerful,  wise,  beneficent,  and  just;  and  these 
attributes  are  really  in  God,  but  not  as  forming  distinct 
realities,  although  they  appear  so  to  the  contemplating  mind. 

*Ep.  234,  i;  235.  TGreg-.    Nys.    Cont.    Eunom.    12; 

5  Ibid.  Basil,  Cont.  Eunom.  7. 

'Cont.  Eunom.  12, 


258    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

The  same  position  as  regards  God's  essence  had  already 
been  taken  by  Athanasius  before  the  controversy  on  this  par 
ticular  point  reached  an  acute  stage.  Thus  he  writes  in  con 
nection  with  the  decision  of  the  Nicene  Council :  "  When  we 
hear  the  expressions,  '  I  am  who  am '  and  '  In  the  beginning 
God  made  heaven  and  earth,'  and  '  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord 
thy  God  is  one  Lord,'  and  '  Thus  saith  the  Lord,'  we  under 
stand  nothing  else  than  the  simple,  blessed,  incomprehensible 
substance  of  Him  who  is ;  for  although  we  cannot  comprehend 
what  precisely  He  is,  nevertheless  when  we  hear  the  words, 
Father,  God,  Omnipotent,  we  conceive  that  the  reality  thus 
indicated  is  the  substance  of  Him  who  is."  8 

Western  writers,  not  directly  connected  with  this  contro 
versy,  took  practically  the  same  view.  Thus  Hilary  of 
Poitiers,  commenting  on  the  words  of  Exodus,  "  I  am  who 
am,"  writes :  "  I  am  struck  with  admiration  when  I  consider 
the  absolute  significance  of  these  words  in  reference  to  God. 
They  bring  out  the  incomprehensibility  of  the  divine  nature, 
and  yet  in  a  way  adapted  to  human  understanding.  Nothing 
is  more  proper  to  God  than  being  itself,  which  has  neither 
beginning  nor  end,  but  is  possessed  in  permanent  enjoyment 
of  incorruptible  beatitude."  9 

Similarly  St.  Ambrose :  "  God,  knowing  what  was  in  the 
mind  of  Moses  when  he  asked,  'What  is  Thy  name?'  did 
not  mention  His  name  in  replying  to  the  question,  but  in 
dicated  that  for  which  the  name  stands,  '  I  am  who  am ' :  for 
nothing  is  more  proper  to  God  than  always  to  be."  10  The 
same  was  evidently  taught  in  far  away  Edessa,  for  Ephrem 
writes:  "God  manifested  His  name  to  Moses  when  He 
said,  '  I  am,'  because  this  name  signifies  His  essence."  11 

This  matter  is  treated  much  more  thoroughly  by  St. 
Augustine,  who,  as  was  his  wont  in  regard  to  questions  that 
had  at  any  time  come  up  for  discussion,  considered  it  in  all 
its  different  aspects.  Here,  however,  we  can  do  no  more 
than  simply  indicate  his  line  of  thought.  Deeply  conscious 
that  reason  must  precede  faith,  he  in  various  places  brings  out 

8  Ep.  De  Syn.  35.  10  Enar.  in  12  Ps.  Dav.  43,  19. 

»De  Trin.  I,  5.  "  Serm.  Adv.  Haeres.  53. 


GOD  AND  HIS  ATTRIBUTES 


259 


the  different  arguments  that  may  be  used  to  prove  the  exis 
tence  of  a  personal  God,  who  demands  our  worship  here  on 
earth  and  promises  us  eternal  blessedness  in  heaven.  The 
wonderful  order  of  the  world  points  to  a  wise  Providence  that 
directs  every  being  to  its  appointed  end ; l2  the  varied  activi 
ties  of  existing  and  ever  changing  natures  demand  an  eternal 
source  of  energy  which  can  be  none  other  than  God  Him 
self;13  the  ascending  scale  of  finite  perfections  necessarily 
implies  the  existence  of  an  infinitely  perfect  God  who  is  the 
source  and  crown  of  them  all ; 14  the  eternal  ideas  and  prin 
ciples  which  illumine  the  human  mind  are  in  some  way  a 
reflection  of  God's  unchangeable  truth.15  To  the  intelligence 
this  God  is  the  highest  truth,  to  the  heart  He  is  the  supreme 
good.  Without  Him  the  intellect  can  have  no  certain  knowl 
edge,  without  Him  the  heart  can  find  no  lasting  rest.16 

He,  too,  looks  upon  being  itself  as  the  essence  of  God. 
"  Putting  aside,"  he  says,  "  every  other  denomination  by 
which  He  might  be  designated,  God  answered  Moses  that  He 
was  being  itself,  so  that  in  comparison  with  Him  other  beings 
are  as  if  they  were  not.  Not  compared  to  Him  they  are  in 
deed,  for  they  are  from  Him;  but  in  comparison  with  Him 
they  are  not,  because  He  alone  is  the  one  true  and  unchange 
able  being."  17 

This  essence,  however,  has  its  definite  attributes;  for  God 
is  all-powerful,  all-wise,  immense,  eternal,  and  perfect  in 
every  way.  But  all  these  attributes,  in  so  far  as  they  are 
realities,  are  identical  with  His  essence.  Hence  he  writes : 
"  Whatever  is  mentioned  as  being  in  God,  is  God  Himself. 
For  power  is  not  one  thing  in  God  and  prudence  another ;  nor 
fortitude,  nor  justice,  nor  chastity.  Whichever  of  these  at 
tributes  you  predicate  of  God,  they  are  neither  understood 
nor  rightly  said  to  be  really  distinct;  for  this  distinction  is  a 
matter  of  the  mind  illumined  by  the  light  which  these  qualities 
shed  upon  it."  18 

12  Serm.  141,  2.  16  De  Civ.  Dei,  8,  10,  2. 

13  Confess.  10,  8-10.  17  Enar.  in  Ps.  134,  4. 

14  De  Trin.  8,  5,  4-  18  De  Trin.  6,  4,  6;  6,  7,  8. 

15  Ibid.  8,  5 ;  De  Lib.  Arbitr.  7-14. 


26o    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

Besides  the  testimony  of  Holy  Scripture,  the  created  world 
itself  proclaims  these  attributes  of  God.  For  by  His  eternal 
and  unchangeable  will  He  called  all  beings  into  existence; 
they  are  all  the  outpouring  of  His  goodness;  they  were  all 
made  according  to  a  preconceived  plan,  and  He  preserves  them 
all.19 

In  this  condition  the  Church's  teaching  on  God  and  His 
attributes  practically  remained  until  the  end  of  the  Patristic 
age,  except  that  the  Pseudo-Areapagite  towards  the  middle 
of  the  fifth  century  added  some  further  details.  Besides  other 
works,  he  wrote  a  treatise  on  the  Divine  Names,  in  which  He 
shows  that  no  name  taken  from  creatures  can  befittingly  be 
applied  to  God.  The  attributes  of  goodness,  mercy,  power, 
wisdom,  or  any  other  that  we  perceive  in  the  world  around 
us,  are  not  formally  found  in  the  Divinity.  God  is  above  all 
names  and  all  attributes  as  we  understand  them.  In  this 
sense  He  is  ovwvuftos  without  a  name.20  Yet  as  He  is 
the  author  of  all  that  is  positive  and  good  in  nature,  He  must 
in  a  certain  sense  contain  all  the  perfections  of  His  creatures ; 
they  are  but  the  multiplied  expressions  of  His  absolute  unity, 
and  in  so  far  He  is  also  TroAuwn^o?,  designated  by  many 
names.21 

Analyzing  our  knowledge  of  God,  he  distinguishes  three 
acts  as  concurring  in  its  genesis.  First  we  affirm  of  God  all 
perfections  of  which  He  is  the  origin.  Next  we  perceive 
that  He  is  above  and  beyond  them  all,  and  thereby  we  deny 
Him  these  same  perfections.  Yet  this  denial  does  not  destroy 
our  first  affirmation;  for  it  simply  comes  to  this  that  we 
recognize  God  to  be  above  all  perfections  as  they  are  in 
creatures,  and  thereby  we  conclude  that  He  possesses  them  all 
in  a  more  eminent  degree.  This  is  true  knowledge  of  God, 
or  true  theology.22 

B  —  THE  BLESSED  TRINITY 
The  teaching  of  the  Church  on  the  Blessed  Trinity  received 

19  De  Gen.  ad  Lit.  4,  26;  4,  22;      Myst.  Theol.  5. 

Confess.  13,  2-5.  21  De  Div.  Nom.  I,  6;  II,  3,  n. 

20  De  Div.   Nom.   I,   i,  5,  6 ;   De          22  De  Myst.  Theol.  I,  2. 


THE  BLESSED  TRINITY  261 

its  first  real  development  in  the  East,  for  it  was  chiefly  there 
that  the  Arian  heresy  called  for  a  clear  exposition  of  the 
doctrine.  The  men  principally  concerned  in  it  were  Antha- 
nasius  of  Alexandria,  Basil  the  Great,  Gregory  of  Nazianzus, 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Didymus  the  Blind,  and  Amphilochius  of 
Iconium.  They  not  only  defended  the  divinity  of  the  Son 
and  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  made  also  some  attempt  to  explain 
the  relation  that  exists  between  the  three  divine  persons,  and 
thus  brought  the  mystery  itself  into  the  foreground  of  theo 
logical  discussion.  The  West,  though  represented  at  the  time 
by  a  number  of  eminent  men,  contributed  little  to  the  eluci 
dation  of  the  mystery.  Hilary  of  Poitiers,  Phoebadius  of 
Agen,  Ambrose  of  Milan,  Zeno  of  Verona,  Nicetas  of 
Remesiana  in  Dacia,  and  the  learned  Jerome,  were  all  staunch 
defenders  of  the  Trinity,  but  they  rarely  stopped  to  theorize 
or  to  offer  much  by  way  of  explanation.  Excepting  Marius 
Victorinus,  whose  Neoplatonic  philosophy  makes  him  a  very 
unsafe  guide  in  matters  theological,  the  theoretical  side  of  the 
question  was  not  touched  in  the  West  until  Augustine  under 
took  to  perfect  what  had  been  so  well  begun  by  the  fourth- 
century  writers  of  the  East.  He  brought  Trinitarian  teach 
ing  to  a  point  where  it  remained  till  the  end  of  the  Patristic 
age. 

The  first  of  the  Eastern  theologians  to  write  copiously  on 
this  subject  was  St.  Athanasius,  the  "  Standard  Bearer  of 
Orthodoxy."  He,  however,  confined  himself  mostly  to  tra 
ditional  lines  of  exposition  and  defense.  His  fundamental 
proposition  in  reference  to  the  true  divinity  of  the  Son  comes 
to  this :  According  to  Holy  Scripture  Christ  deifies  us ;  there 
fore  He  must  be  God  of  His  very  essence.  For  were  He 
God  by  participation  only,  He  could  not  unite  us  to  the 
Divinity,  He  could  not  redeem  us ;  because  He  Himself  would 
then  need  to  be  united  to  the  Godhead.  Therefore  Christ  is 
true  God.23 

Now  God  is  certainly  a  unity,  He  is  one ;  but  in  this  unity, 
in  this  one  God,  there  in  a  trinity.24  For  first  of  all,  the  very 

23  De  Syn.  5;  cfr.  Cont.  Arian.  i,         2*  Ibid,  i,  18. 
16,  39- 


262    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

name  Father  supposes  the  existence  of  a  Son.25  But  as  God 
is  without  parts,  He  is  necessarily  Father  of  the  Son  with 
out  partition  or  passion.26  Hence  the  generation  of  the  Son 
does  not  mean  the  act  of  being  made,  but  signifies  participation 
in  the  entire  substance  of  the  Father.27  The  Son  is  coeternal 
with  the  Father,  and  shares  the  undivided  plenitude  of  the 
divinity.28  They  are  two,  the  Father  and  the  Son,  but  their 
nature  is  one,  and  this  oneness  is  indivisible  and  inseparable.29 
The  Father  wills  and  loves  the  Son  just  as  necessarily  as  He 
wills  and  loves  Himself,  and  therefore  He  begets  the  Son 
both  necessarily  and  voluntarily.30  The  Father  begot  the  Son 
by  His  will,  but  by  His  necessary  will. 

Then  there  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Spirit  of  God,  who  shares 
the  same  divinity  and  the  same  power.31  He  sanctifies  and 
deifies  us  through  His  indwelling  in  our  hearts,  makes  us 
partakers  of  the  divine  nature;  therefore  He,  too,  must  be 
God  by  His  very  essence.32  The  Holy  Spirit  is  inseparable 
from  the  substance  of  the  Father  and  the  Son ;  33  hence  there 
is  but  one  divinity,  one  God  in  three  divine  persons.  "  Thus 
there  is  a  holy  and  perfect  Trinity,  which  is  acknowledged 
in  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  .  .  .  having 
the  same  and  undivided  nature,  one  energy  and  one  operation. 
For  the  Father  effects  everything  through  the  Word  in  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  in  this  manner  the  unity  of  the  Holy  Trinity 
is  preserved/'  34 

As  regards  the  relation  of  the  three  divine  persons  to  one 
another,  this  is  to  be  held :  "  The  same  relation  which  we 
know  to  exist  between  the  Son  and  the  Father,  we  also  find 
to  exist  between  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Son.  For  as  the 
Son  says :  '  Whatsoever  the  Father  has  is  mine  also/  so  do 
we  perceive  all  this  to  be  in  the  Spirit  through  the  Son.  .  .  . 
Hence  if  the  Son,  on  account  of  His  relation  to  the  Father 
and  because  He  is  the  proper  offspring  of  the  Father's  sub- 

25  De  Decret.  Nic.  30.  81  De  Incarn.  9 ;  Tom.  ad  Antioch 

26  Ibid.  11.  5- 

27  Cont.  Arian.  i,  16.  32  Ad  Scrap,  i,  24. 

28  Ibid,  i,  14.  33  Tom.  ad  Antioch.  5. 

29  Cont.  Arian.  4,  i.  34  Ad  Scrap,  i,  28. 
80  Ibid,  i,  16;  62,  66. 


THE  BLESSED  TRINITY  263 

stance,  is  not  a  creature  but  consubstantial  with  the  Father,  so 
neither  is  the  Holy  Spirit  a  creature;  to  say  that  He  is  would 
indeed  be  impious,  because  of  His  relation  to  the  Son,  who 
imparts  Him  to  all,  and  whatever  He  has  is  the  Son's  own."  35 

St.  Basil,  besides  emphasizing  the  traditional  teaching  of 
the  Church,  contributed  much  towards  the  clarification  of 
ideas  and  the  development  of  a  fixed  terminology.  Against 
the  Arians  he  maintained  the  unity  of  God,  and  against  the 
Sabellians  the  trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead.  He  con 
densed  His  teaching  into  the  short  expression :  "  Mia  ovo-ta, 
rpets  Woo-Tcums,"  one  essence,  three  persons.  "  In  God," 
he  says,  "  there  is  at  once  a  certain  ineffable  and  incompre 
hensible  community  and  distinction :  the  distinction  of  persons 
does  not  exclude  the  unity  of  nature,  nor  does  the  unity  of 
nature  destroy  the  proper  and  characteristic  marks  of  distinc 
tion."  36 

He  tried  to  define  still  further  the  term  Woo-racrt?,  which 
since  362  had  gradually  come  to  be  distinguished  from  owt'a, 
to  signify  person  in  opposition  to  nature.  In  this,  however, 
he  was  not  wholly  successful,  if  judged  by  modern  standards 
of  theological  precision.  "  Ou<no,"  he  says,  "  has  the  same 
relation  to  Woo-rams  as  the  common  has  to  the  particular. 
Every  one  of  us  shares  in  existence  by  the  common  term 
o£<n'a,  and  by  his  own  properties  he  is  such  and  such  a  one. 
In  the  same  manner,  in  the  matter  in  question,  the  term  ovvta 
is  common,  .  .  .  while  the  Wo'orao-is  is  contemplated  in  the 
special  property  of  fatherhood,  sonship,  or  the  power  to 
sanctify."  37  "  Ovvia  in  God  is  the  intimate  nature  or  being, 
in  opposition  to  His  attributes  (</>iW),  and  His  personal 
modes  (Woorao-cis)." 38  As  it  stands,  this  explanation 
would  imply  a  specific  rather  than  numerical  identity  of 
nature  in  the  three  divine  persons ;  but  this,  as  is  evident  from 
his  insistence  on  the  oneness  and  absolute  unity  of  God,  was 
not  intended  by  the  author. 

The  Holy  Ghost,  although  the  third  in  the  order  of  enumer 
ation,  has  the  same  essence  as  the  Father  and  the  Son:  He 

35  ibid.  3,  i.  37  Ep.  236,  6. 

36  Ep.  38,  4.  ss  Cont.  Eunon.  I,  10. 


264    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

must  be  conceived  with  them,  and  not  below  them;  He  must 
be  honored  with  them,  and  not  as  inferior  to  them;  He  is 
homoousios  with  the  Father  and  the  Son.39  He  is  "  from 
the  Father  through  the  Only-Begotten,"40  and  "  the  Son  bears 
the  same  relation  to  the  Father  as  the  Holy  Ghost  bears  to 
the  Son."  41  "  Yet  he  comes  from  God  not  by  generation  as 
the  Son,  but  as  the  Spirit  of  His  mouth.  He  is  also  called 
the  Spirit  of  Christ,  as  being  in  respect  of  nature  made  His 
own."  42 

Gregory  of  Nazianzus  devoted  long  years  to  the  defense 
and  exposition  of  orthodox  Trinitarian  teaching,  which  he 
sums  up  as  follows :  "  I  give  thee  this  profession  of  faith 
as  a  lifelong  guide  and  protector:  One  sole  divinity  and 
one  power,  which  exists  in  three  together  and  includes  in 
itself  the  three  distinct,  not  differing  in  substance  or  nature, 
neither  increased  by  addition  nor  lessened  by  subtraction,  in 
every  way  equal,  absolutely  one,  even  as  the  single  and  un 
divided  beauty  and  grandeur  of  the  firmament,  an  infinite 
unity  of  three  infinite  persons,  each  being  God  as  considered 
apart,  God  the  Father  and  God  the  Son  and  God  the  Holy 
Ghost,  each  being  distinct  by  His  personal  properties;  all 
three  together  being  God :  that  on  account  of  identity  of  na 
ture,  this  on  account  of  one  sovereignty."  43 

The  same  view  is  taken  by  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  except  that 
he  calls  particular  attention  to  the  term  "  Godhead,"  which, 
he  says,  is  significant  of  operation  rather  than  of  nature.  In 
connection  with  this,  he  develops  some  remarkably  clear  ideas 
on  the  activity  and  immanent  relations  of  the  three  divine 
persons.  "  Every  activity,"  he  says,  "  that  proceeds  from 
God  in  reference  to  creatures,  and  is  designated  according 
to  their  various  kinds,  takes  its  origin  from  the  Father,  pro 
ceeds  through  the  Son,  and  is  perfected  in  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Hence  we  cannot  speak  of  several  activities,  although  we 
predicate  plurality  of  the  persons.  The  activity  of  each  is  not 
divided  or  separate ;  but  whatsoever  is  done,  be  it  in  the  matter 

39  Cont.  Eunom.  5  ;  cfr.  1-3.  42  Ibid.  46. 

40  De  Spir.  Sanct.  47.  43  Orat.  40,  41. 
411  Ibid.  43. 


THE  BLESSED  TRINITY  265 

of  God's  providential  love  for  us  or  His  government  and 
direction  of  the  world,  is  done  by  the  three,  nor  are  the  things 
done  threefold."  44  This  might  have  been  written  by  St. 
Thomas. 

Then  in  reference  to  the  immanent  relation  of  the  three 
divine  persons :  "  Should  anyone  object  against  our  teaching 
that  by  the  denial  of  any  difference  in  nature  we  confuse  and 
commingle  the  hypostases  we  reply  that,  while  firmly  adher 
ing  to  the  identity  of  nature,  we  do  not  deny  the  distinction 
between  the  principle  and  what  proceeds  from  it.  We  find 
this  distinction  between  them :  We  believe  that  one  is  the 
principle  and  that  the  other  is  from  the  principle,  and  in  what 
is  from  the  principle  we  find  another  distinction.  For  one 
is  from  the  first  immediately,  the  other  only  mediately  and 
through  that  which  is  immediately  from  the  first,  so  that  the 
characteristic  note  of  Only-Begotten  belongs  undoubtedly  to 
the  Son.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  certain  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
proceeds  from  the  Father,  for  while  the  intermediate  position 
of  the  Son  entitles  Him  to  the  distinction  of  Only-Begotten, 
His  natural  relation  to  the  Father  does  not  exclude  the  Holy 
Spirit."  45 

The  divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  he  defended  specially 
against  the  Macedonians.  In  the  course  of  his  argumenta 
tion  he  says :  "  We  confess  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  coordinate 
with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  in  the  sense  that  between  them 
there  is  absolutely  no  difference  as  regards  all  things  that  can 
be  thought  and  said  in  a  Godfearing  way  concerning  the 
divine  nature,  except  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  distinct 
hypostasis,  because  He  is  from  God  and  of  Christ,  in  such 
wise  that  he  does  not  share  with  the  Father  in  the  property 
of  not  proceeding,  nor  with  the  Son  in  the  property  of  being 
the  Only-Begotten."  46 

Didymus  the  Blind  treated  this  matter  at  length  in  his  three 
books  De  Trinitaie,  and  in  a  separate  work,  De  Spiritu 
Sancto.  He  gives  a  clear  and  solid  exposition  of  orthodox 
teaching  on  the  points  in  question.  Like  St.  Basil,  he  sums 

4*  Quod  non  sunt  tres  Dii,  4,  125.          4«  Adv.  Maced.  2. 


266    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

up  his  Trinitarian  views  in  the  proposition,  "  Mt'a  ova-ia, 
rpets  Wooraaeis,"  one  essence,  three  persons.  The  Son  is 
homoousios  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  homo- 
ousios  with  the  Father  and  the  Son ;  distinct  from  one  another 
as  persons,  they  are  identical  in  the  essence  of  the  Godhead. 
"  As  it  is  impossible  that  the  Father  should  not  be  truly  Father 
from  all  eternity,  so  it  is  impossible  that  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  should  not  be  from  all  eternity  and  by  nature 
from  His  very  essence ;  for  as  soon  as  the  Father  was,  if  one 
may  so  speak,  immediately  the  one  was  born  and  the  other 
proceeded."  47  Hence  anything  like  a  temporal  generation  or 
procession  is  necessarily  excluded. 

Again :  "  The  Son  is  said  to  receive  from  the  Father, 
whereby  He  Himself  subsists.  For  neither  is  the  Son  aught 
else  but  what  is  given  Him  by  the  Father,  nor  the  Holy  Ghost 
but  what  is  given  Him  by  the  Son.  These  things  (de  meo 
accipit,  etc.)  are  said  in  order  that  we  may  believe  that  the 
nature  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  Father 
and  the  Son."  48  The  Holy  Ghost,  therefore,  proceeds  im 
mediately  from  the  Son,  but  ultimately  also  from  the  Father. 

Amphilochius  of  Iconium  was  intimately  associated  with 
the  three  great  Cappadocians  in  the  work  of  pacification,  and 
wrote  an  excellent  Synodal  Letter  on  the  True  Divinity  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  In  the  fragment  of  it  that  has  been  preserved 
he  gives  a  somewhat  detailed  exposition  of  the  modus  essendi 
as  proper  to  each  of  the  three  divine  persons.  "Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost,"  he  states,  "  signify  personal  relations,  and 
not  the  nature  of  the  Godhead.  The  name  God  designates  the 
to  esse  of  the  three,  whereas  the  names  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit,  signify  the  to  esse  tale  of  each."  49  In  this  he  some 
what  perfected  the  teaching  of  Basil  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
who  had  used  the  same  expression  in  reference  to  the  Son 
and  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  without  applying  it  to  the  Father. 

The  same  subject  was  also  touched  upon  by  Epiphanius  of 
Salamis  in  his  Panarium  Adversus  Haereses,  although  he  does 
little  more  than  state  the  traditional  teaching  of  the  Church. 

47  De  Spin  Sanct.  i,  15.  49  Ad    Seleuc.    fragm.    P.    G.   39, 

48  Ibid.  3,  12;  6,  37.  112. 


THE  BLESSED  TRINITY  267 

"  They  (the  Antiochians),"  he  says,  "  confess  that  the  Father 
and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  consubstantial,  three 
persons,  one  nature,  one  Godhead:  and  this,  indeed,  is  the 
true  faith,  delivered  to  us  by  our  forefathers  —  the  Apostolic 
faith,  announced  by  the  Prophets  and  the  Evangelists,  which 
those  fathers  and  bishops  also  professed  who  were  gathered 
together  in  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  held  under  the  great  and 
most  blessed  Emperor  Constantine."  50 

However  he  adds  also  something  of  his  own.  Replying  to 
the  contention  of  some  Arians  that  in  the  Catholic  view  the 
Holy  Spirit  must  be  considered  as  the  brother  of  the  Son 
or  the  nephew  of  the  Father,  he  says:  "The  Spirit  was  al 
ways  with  the  Father  and  the  Son;  not  the  brother  of  the 
Father,  not  born  of  Him,  not  created,  not  the  brother  of  the 
Son,  nor  the  nephew  of  the  Father,  but  proceeding  from  the 
Father  and  receiving  from  the  Son ;  not  foreign  to  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  but  of  the  same  substance  and  of  the  same 
divinity;  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  with  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  subsisting  always  as  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Divine 
Spirit,  the  Spirit  of  glory,  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  the  Spirit  of 
the  Father.  For  it  is  the  Spirit  of  the  Father  that  '  speaketh 
in  you  and  my  Spirit  is  in  the  midst  of  you/  The  third  in 
the  order  of  enumeration,  He  is  equal  to  the  others  in  divinity ; 
not  of  a  different  nature  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  but 
the  bond  of  the  Trinity,  the  seal  of  confession."  51 

From  the  foregoing  citations  it  appears  quite  evident  that 
all  these  writers  hold  the  absolute  and  numerical  identity  of 
the  divine  nature  as  possessed  by  the  three  divine  persons; 
and  hence  Harnack's  contention  that  the  Cappadocians  were 
homoiousians  rather  than  homooitsians  is  without  founda 
tion  in  fact.  They  all  agreed  with  the  teaching  of  St.  Basil, 
who  stated  his  views  on  this  point  very  clearly  when  he  wrote : 
"  In  accordance  with  the  true  doctrine,  we  speak  of  the  Son 
as  neither  like  nor  unlike  the  Father;  for  each  of  these  terms 
is  equally  repugnant.  Like  and  unlike  are  predicated  of  be 
ings  in  reference  to  their  accidental  determinations,  and  from 

s°  Adv.  Haer.  73,  34.  ^  Ibid.  62,  4. 


268    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

such  God  is  free.  We,  on  the  contrary,  confessing  the  iden 
tity  of  the  nature,  accept  the  homoousios  and  avoid  adding  to 
the  Father,  who  is  God  in  substance,  the  Son,  who  is  also  God 
in  substance ;  for  this  is  what  is  meant  by  the  homoousios."  52 

Hence  when  they  sometimes,  by  way  of  illustration,  say 
that  God  is  one  as  man  or  mankind  is  one,  notwithstanding 
the  distinction  that  exists  between  individuals,  it  must  be 
borne  in  mind  that  in  this  connection  they  take  man  or  man 
kind  in  the  abstract,  and  not  as  existing  in  the  concrete  order 
of  things.  And  in  the  abstract,  as  a  mere  concept,  mankind 
is  not  only  specifically  but  numerically  one.  Thus  the  illus 
tration  is  philosophically  faulty,  based  as  it  is  upon  a  con 
fusion  of  the  abstract  and  the  concrete,  but  the  theological 
doctrine  which  it  is  intended  to  illustrate  is  perfectly  orthodox. 

With  the  Trinitarian  teaching  of  these  Eastern  theologians, 
as  outlined  in  the  preceding  paragraphs,  their  contemporaries 
of  the  West  were  in  perfect  accord.  It  must  be  noted,  how 
ever,  that  they  look  at  the  matter  from  a  different  view-point. 
Whilst  the  Eastern  writers  usually  reason  from  the  distinction 
of  persons  in  the  Godhead  to  the  unity  of  the  divine  nature, 
those  of  the  West  almost  invariably  fix  their  attention 
primarily  upon  the  unity  of  the  divine  nature  and  then  proceed 
to  establish  the  distinction  of  persons.  The  doctrine  in  each 
case  is  the  same,  but  the  method  of  procedure  is  different. 
Harnack  indeed  contends  that  the  Western  theologians,  and 
especially  Augustine,  differed  also  in  doctrine  from  their 
Eastern  contemporaries,53  but  as  already  pointed  out  above, 
he  simply  misinterprets  the  Trinitarian  teaching  of  the  East. 
The  groundlessness  of  his  contention  will,  moreover,  appear 
with  sufficient  clearness  from  the  following  summary  of 
Western  theological  thought,  as  gathered  from  the  works  of 
the  principal  writers  belonging  to  the  period  now  under  con 
sideration. 

Hilary  of  Poitiers,  commenting  on  the  baptismal  formula, 
writes :  "  He  commanded  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  is,  in  the 

62  Ep.  8,  3.  B3  Dogmengeschichte,  II,  304  sqq. 


THE  BLESSED  TRINITY  269 

confession  of  the  Author  and  of  the  Only-Begotten  and  of 
the  Gift.  There  is  one  Author  of  all  things.  For  one  is  God 
the  Father,  from  whom  are  all  things;  one  is  the  Only-Be 
gotten,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  are  all  things; 
and  one  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Gift  in  all  things."  54  What 
kind  of  unity  he  has  in  mind  when  he  says  that  God  is  one, 
he  sets  forth  more  clearly  in  another  place :  "  God  is  one, 
not  in  person  but  in  nature."  "  Not  one  subsisting,  but  one 
substance  without  differentiation."  55  "  God  the  Father  and 
God  the  Son  are  absolutely  one,  not  by  a  union  of  person, 
but  by  the  unity  of  substance."  56  Nor  is  the  Son  in  any  way 
inferior  to  the  Father :  "  The  plenitude  of  the  divinity  is 
perfect  in  both.  For  the  Son  is  not  a  diminution  of  the 
Father,  nor  is  the  Son  less  perfect  than  the  Father."  57  And 
what  is  said  of  the  Son  in  this  respect,  must  also  be  said  of 
the  Holy  Spirit;  for  the  "names,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit,  refer  to  one  and  the  same  nature."  58 

Ambrose  of  Milan  speaks  in  the  same  strain :  "  There  is," 
he  says,  "  a  certain  indistinct  substance  of  the  distinct,  in 
comprehensible,  and  ineffable  Trinity.  For  we  have  been 
taught  that  there  is  a  distinction  between  the  Father  and  the 
Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  not  a  confusion  of  the  same;  a  dis 
tinction,  not  a  separation;  a  distinction,  not  a  plurality."59 
Both  the  distinction  and  the  unity  have  their  reason  in  the 
origin  of  the  second  and  third  persons.  "  For  the  Father  is 
not  the  same  as  the  Son,  but  between  the  Father  and  the  Son 
is  the  distinction  that  arises  from  the  generation,  so  that  the 
Son  is  God  of  God."  "  The  plenitude  of  the  divinity  is  in  the 
Father,  and  the  plenitude  of  the  divinity  is  in  the  Son ;  not  a 
different,  but  the  same  divinity."  60  The  same  is  also  true 
of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  for  "  He  received  from  the  Son  per 
unitatem  siibstantice,  even  as  the  Son  received  from  the 
Father."61  And  "who  would  dare  to  say  that  the  Holy 

B*De  Trinit,  2,  I.  58  Ibid.  2,  5. 

55  De  Syn.  69,  64;  De  Trinit.   I,          59De  Fide,  4,  8,  91. 
16.  60  Ibid,  i,  2,  17. 

56  Ibid.  4,  42,  40.  61  De  Spirit,  Sanct.  2,  118. 
"  Ibid.  3,  23. 


270    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

Spirit  is  different  in  nature  from  the  Father  and  from 
Christ?"62 

Phcebadius  of  Agen  proposes  the  same  doctrine  in  equally 
clear  terms.  After  maintaining  against  the  Arians  that  the 
Son  is  true  God,  he  goes  on  to  say:  "If  anyone  is  scanda 
lized  at  this,  let  him  understand  that  the  Spirit  is  also  God. 
As  the  Son  is  the  second  person  in  the  Godhead,  so  is  the 
Holy  Spirit  the  third  person.  However  all  three  are  one 
God;  the  three  are  one.  This  we  believe  and  this  we  hold, 
because  this  we  have  been  taught  by  the  Prophets,  the  Evan 
gelists,  and  by  the  Apostles  of  old."  G3 

Zeno  of  Verona,  Nicetas  of  Remesiana,  and  Jerome  adhered 
closely  to  the  Trinitarian  formula  worked  out  by  Tertullian: 
"  Una  substantia,  tres  personas  " ;  "  tres  personas  unius  sub- 
stantise  et  unius  divinitatis  confitentes."  °4  Adjectively  this 
formula  is  expressed  by  consubstantialis,  which  has  for  its 
Greek  equivalent  the  term  homoonsios,  though  the  latter 
is  more  expressive  of  the  identity  of  nature.  The  formula  is 
a  summary  statement  of  Western  theology  in  reference  to  the 
true  divinity  of  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 

This  traditional  teaching  we  find  reproduced  in  the  works 
of  Augustine,  who  in  387  had  been  converted  and  instructed 
in  the  faith  by  the  conservative  Ambrose  of  Milan.  How 
ever  as  it  appears  in  his  writings,  it  is  considerably  developed, 
and  set  forth  with  much  attention  to  details.  Profiting  by 
the  labors  of  his  predecessors  and  gifted  with  singular  clear 
ness  of  vision  as  well  as  depth  of  penetration,  Augustine 
brought  the  Church's  Trinitarian  teaching  to  a  point  of  per 
fection  that  precluded  further  development  for  centuries  to 
come.  Only  a  mere  outline  of  his  teaching  can  here  be  given, 
but  it  will  be  sufficient  to  show  the  fruit  fulness  of  his  labors. 

In  the  first  chapter  of  his  book  De  Trinitate.  he  indicates 
the  aim  of  his  work  as  follows :  "  Wherefore,  our  Lord  God 
helping,  we  will  undertake  to  render,  as  far  as  we  are  able, 
that  very  account  which  they  so  importunately  demand,  namely, 
that  the  Trinity  is  the  one  and  only  true  God,  and  also  how 

62  Ibid,  i,  6,  80.  64  De  Pudic.  21 ;  Adv.  Prax.  19. 

63  Cont.  Arian.  22. 


THE  BLESSED  TRINITY  271 

the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  rightly  said,  be 
lieved,  and  understood,  to  be  one  and  the  same  substance  or 
essence."  65 

He  will,  however,  attempt  nothing  novel;  but  only  propose 
what  has  been  the  teaching  of  the  Church  at  all  times.  For 
a  little  further  on  he  states :  "  All  those  Catholic  expounders 
of  the  divine  Scriptures,  both  Old  and  New,  who  have  written 
before  me  concerning  the  Trinity,  and  whom  I  have  been 
able  to  read,  have  purposed  to  teach,  according  to  the  Scrip 
tures,  this  doctrine,  that  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  intimate  a  divine  unity  of  one  and  the  same  substance 
in  an  indivisible  equality,  and  that  therefore  they  are  not  three 
Gods,  but  one  God:  although  the  Father  hath  begotten  the 
Son,  and  so  He  who  is  the  Father  is  not  the  Son;  and  the 
Son  is  begotten  by  the  Father,  and  so  He  who  is  the  Son  is 
not  the  Father;  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  neither  the  Father 
nor  the  Son,  but  only  the  Spirit  of  the  Father  and  of  the 
Son,  Himself  also  coequal  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and 
pertaining  to  the  unity  of  the  Trinity.  .  .  .  The  Father,  and 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  they  are  indivisible,  so  they 
work  indivisibly.  This  is  also  my  faith,  since  it  is  the  Catholic 
faith."  66 

As  appears  quite  obvious  from  these  introductory  remarks, 
what  stood  primarily  before  the  author's  mind  was  the  unity 
of  the  divine  nature  rather  than  the  trinity  of  persons.  '  The 
Trinity  is  the  one  and  only  true  God  " :  one  sole  divine  nature 
subsisting  in  three  persons;  whereas  the  Greek  formula  ran: 
"  Three  persons  having  one  and  the  same  divine  nature."  The 
two  formulas  propose  the  same  doctrine,  but  that  of  Augustine 
brings  out  much  more  clearly  the  absolute  equality  of  the 
persons.  The  subsisting  nature  is  God,  and  that  nature  sub 
sists  in  the  Father  and  in  the  Son  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Hence  the  three  persons  "  intimate  a  divine  unity  of  one  and 
the  same  substance  in  an  indivisible  equality."  And  this 
equality  is  so  absolute,  that  not  only  is  the  Father  not  greater 
than  the  Son,  nor  the  Father  and  the  Son  greater  than  the 

65  Op.  cit.  i,  4.  66  Ibid. 


272    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

Holy  Spirit,  but  neither  is  any  single  one  of  the  three  less 
than  the  whole  Trinity.67  "  All  that  the  Father  and  the  Son 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  together  are,  that  also  is  the  Father  alone, 
or  the  Son  alone,  or  the  Holy  Spirit  alone."  68  The  reason 
for  this  is  the  indivisible  unity  of  the  divine  nature.  Hence 
the  author  lays  down  the  rule  that  all  absolute  perfections 
of  the  Godhead  must  be  predicated  in  the  singular:  "Unus 
Deus,  bonus,  omnipotens  ipsa  Trinitas,  et  quidquid  aliud  non 
invicem  relative,  sed  ad  se  singuli  dicuntur ;  hoc  enim  secundum 
essentiam  dicuntur."  69 

Yet  this  indivisible  unity  of  the  divine  nature  does  not  inter 
fere  with  the  distinction  of  persons.  "  For,  indeed,  since  Fa 
ther  is  not  Son,  and  Son  is  not  Father,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  who 
is  also  called  the  Gift  of  God,  is  neither  the  Father  nor  the 
Son,  they  are  certainly  three.  And  so  it  is  said  in  the  plural, 
'  I  and  the  Father  are  one ' ;  for  He  did  not  say,  '  is  one/  as 
the  Sabellians  say,  but '  are  one/  Yet  if  it  be  asked  what  the 
three  are,  human  speech  has  not  the  terms  to  set  forth  the 
true  answer.  Still  we  say  three  '  persons,'  not  that  we  wish 
to  say  it,  but  that  we  may  not  be  altogether  silent."  70 

Here,  then,  is  the  mystery.  We  are  certain  of  the  fact  that 
there  is  one  divine  essence,  definite  and  individual,  numerically 
identical  in  the  three  who  possess  it ;  moreover  it  does  not  form 
a  fourth  term  added  to  the  three  persons,71  but  is  objectively 
and  really  identical  with  them,  being  the  very  Godhead  which 
is  Father  and  Son  and  Holy  Spirit:  how  this  can  be,  the 
human  mind  is  unable  to  fathom.  And  there  is  another  mys 
tery  about  the  three  in  so  far  as  they  are  persons.  In  what 
does  their  personality  consist?  All  we  can  say  is  that  they 
are  relationes  subsistentes,  subsisting  relations;  not  identical 
with  the  divine  substance  as  such,  nor  objectively  and  really 
distinct  from  it,  nor  in  any  sense  mere  accidents,  but  essential 
to  the  nature  of  the  Godhead.  The  Father  is  a  person  because 
of  the  relation  He  bears  to  the  Son,  the  Son  is  a  person  because 
of  His  relation  to  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  person 

67  Ibid.  8,  procem.  70  De  Trinit.  5,  10. 

68  Ibid.  6,  g.  71  Ibid.  5,  g. 

69  Ibid.  8,  procem. 


THE  BLESSED  TRINITY  273 

because  of  His  relation  to  the  Father  and  the  Son.  It  is 
the  relatio  "  ad  invicem  et  ad  alterutrum "  that  constitutes 
them  persons.72  Of  course,  as  already  stated,  the  term  per 
son,  as  applied  to  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  is  taken  in  an  analogous  sense.  Its  meaning  is  not  the 
same  as  when  applied  to  human  beings.  The  three  are  called 
persons,  and  they  are  persons ;  but  in  it  all  there  is  a  mystery 
that  lies  beyond  the  reach  of  human  intelligence.73 

That  there  can  be  only  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  the 
author  tries  to  make  clear  in  various  ways.  Thus,  for  in 
stance,  by  analyzing  the  concept  of  love.  "  Love  is  of  some 
one  that  loves,  and  with  love  something  is  loved.  So  here 
are  three  things:  he  that  loves,  and  that  which  is  loved,  and 
love.  What  else  then  is  love  but  as  it  were  a  life  that  links 
together  or  seeks  to  link  together  some  two  things;  namely, 
him  that  loves  and  that  which  is  loved?  " 74  In  the  Trinity, 
then,  we  have  the  Father  loving  the  Son,  the  Son  who  is  loved 
by  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  who  is  love.  "  One  God, 
and  this  God  Himself  the  Trinity." 

The  relatio  originis  is  different  in  the  different  persons. 
"  The  Father  alone  is  of  no  one  else,  and  for  that  reason  He 
is  called  unbegotten,  not  only  in  Scripture,  but  also  by  those 
who  discuss  this  profound  subject  in  so  far  as  they  are  able. 
The  Son  is  born  of  the  Father;  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  prin- 
cipaliter  of  the  Father,  and  without  the  slightest  interval  of 
time,  proceeds  communiter  from  both  the  Father  and  the 
Son.  He  would  indeed  be  called  the  son  of  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  if,  what  is  altogether  foreign  to  those  of  a  sane  mind, 
both  had  begotten  Him.  Not  therefore  begotten  by  both,  but 
from  both  of  them  the  Spirit  proceeds."  75  Precisely  how  the 
procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit  differs  from  the  generation  of 
the  Son,  is,  the  author  thinks,  a  mystery  that  we  shall  fathom 
only  in  heaven.76 

The  Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  proceed  "  principaliter  "  from 
the  Father.  This,  however,  must  not  be  understood  in  the 

72  Ibid.  5,  6,  1 6,  17.  75  Ibid.  15,  26,  47. 

73  Ibid.  7,  8,  9.  ™  Ibid.  15,  45 ;  cf  r.  9,  17,  18. 

74  Ibid.  8,  14. 


274    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

sense  that  there  are  two  active  principles  of  procession.  "  I 
added  principaliter,  because  the  Holy  Spirit  is  also  found  to 
proceed  from  the  Son.  But  this  also  the  Father  gave  Him, 
not  as  already  existing  and  not  having,  but  whatever  He  gave 
the  Word,  He  gave  by  begetting  Him.  For  in  such  wise  did 
He  beget  Him,  that  from  Him  also  the  Common  Gift  should 
proceed  and  the  Holy  Spirit  should  be  the  Spirit  of  both."  77 
Hence  "  we  cannot  say  that  the  Holy  Spirit  does  not  also  pro 
ceed  from  the  Son;  for  it  is  not  without  reason  that  He  is 
called  the  Spirit  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  " :  but  "  it  must 
be  confessed  that  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  the  principle  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  not  two  principles"  78 

In  their  operations  ad  extra  the  three  divine  persons  act 
as  one  principle.  "  When  we  say  that  the  Father  is  the  prin- 
cipum  creatures  and  that  the  Son  is  the  principium  creatures, 
we  do  not  say  two  principles;  because  the  Father  and  the 
Son  are  relative  to  the  creature  but  one  principle ;  there  is  one 
Creator  as  there  is  one  God."  79  "  In  respect  of  the  creature, 
the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  one  principle, 
as  they  are  one  Creator  and  one  Lord."  80  Moreover,  this 
operation  ad  extra  causes  no  change  in  the  Godhead;  for  the 
new  denominations  which  thus  arise  in  time  are  all  based 
upon  a  change  that  is  entirely  in  the  creature.  God  is  abso 
lutely  unchangeable.81 

The  Trinitarian  teaching,  thus  formulated  by  these  fourth 
century  writers  and  considerably  developed  by  Augustine,  was 
neatly  summarized  in  the  Symbolum  Athanasianum,  which, 
according  to  modern  research,  most  probably  originated  some 
time  in  the  fifth  century.  "  Whoso  wishes  to  be  saved,  it  is 
before  all  things  necessary  that  he  hold  the  Catholic  faith. 
.  .  .  But  the  Catholic  faith  is  this:  That  we  venerate  one 
God  in  the  Trinity,  and  the  Trinity  in  the  unity;  neither  con 
founding  the  persons,  nor  separating  the  substance.  For  one 
is  the  person  of  the  Father,  another  that  of  the  Son,  another 
that  of  the  Holy  Spirit:  but  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 

77  De  Trinit.  15,  17,  29.  80  Ibid.  5,  14,  15. 

78  Ibid.  4,  29;  5,  15.  81Ibid.  5,  16,  17. 
"Ibid.  5,  13,  14. 


THE  BLESSED  TRINITY 


275 


and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  there  is  one  divinity,  equal  glory, 
coeternal  majesty.  What  the  Father  is,  that  is  the  Son,  that 
the  Holy  Spirit.  .  .  .  Thus  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son, 
God  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  yet  not  three  Gods,  but  one  God. 
.  .  .  The  Father  was  made  of  none :  not  created,  not  begotten. 
The  Son  is  of  the  Father  alone:  not  made,  not  created,  but 
begotten.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son: 
not  made,  not  created,  not  begotten,  but  proceeding.  .  .  . 
And  in  this  Trinity  there  is  nothing  prior  or  posterior,  nothing 
greater  or  less :  but  all  three  persons  are  coeternal  and  coequal. 
So  that,  as  was  already  said  above,  both  the  unity  in  the 
Trinity  and  the  Trinity  in  the  unity  must  be  venerated. 
Whoso  therefore  wishes  to  be  saved,  let  him  thus  think  of 
the  Trinity."  It  may  here  be  added,  that  the  doctrine  thus 
set  forth  is  found  expressed  in  almost  the  same  terms  in  the 
procemium  to  the  eighth  book  of  Augustine's  De  Trinitate. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

MANICHJEISM  AND  PRISCILLIANISM:     THE  PROBLEM  OF 
EVIL:    THE  WORK  OF  CREATION 

Some  of  the  best  efforts  of  the  great  theologians  of  the 
fourth  century  were  spent  in  refuting  the  arguments  of  here 
tics,  who  attacked  now  one  and  then  another  of  the  funda 
mental  doctrines  of  the  Church.  This  was  apparently  a  re- 
gretable  necessity,  as  these  efforts  might  have  been  spent  to 
great  advantage  in  a  peaceful  elucidation  of  the  faith.  How 
ever,  as  the  champions  of  orthodoxy  made  the  refutation  of 
error,  in  nearly  every  instance,  an  occasion  of  setting  forth 
the  true  doctrine,  the  work  thus  accomplished  was  largely  of 
a  very  positive  character,  and  so  contributed  at  least  indi 
rectly  to  the  same  end.  This  is  true  not  only  in  reference  to 
the  Trinitarian  and  Christological  controversies,  which  in 
volved  the  greater  part  of  the  Christian  world,  but  also  in 
respect  of  such  as  were  less  far-reaching  in  their  influence 
and  effects  on  the  general  body  of  the  faithful.  To  this  latter 
class  belong  the  discussions  occasioned  by  the  heresies  of  Mani 
and  Priscillian,  of  which  the  following  is  a  brief  account. 

A  —  MANICH^ISM  AND  PRISCILLIANISM  * 

Originally  Manichaeism  was  not  a  Christian  heresy,  but  in 
its  westward  course,  during  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  it 
adopted  many  Christian  elements,  and  thereby  became  a  dan 
ger  to  the  faith.  Its  author,  whose  name  is  variously  given 
as  Mani,  Manes,  or  Manichaeus,  was  a  third  century  Persian 
dreamer,  who  represented  himself  as  a  divine  legate,  sent  into 
the  world  to  bring  about  a  religious  and  moral  reformation; 

1  Cfr.  Rochat,  Essai  sur  Mani  et      412 ;     Hergenroether,     op.     cit.     I, 
sa  Doctrine :     *  Bethuen-Baker,  op.      297-302 ;  417-422. 
cit.  93-95;  Tixeront,  H.  D.  I,  404- 

276 


MANICtLEISM  AND  PRISCILLIANISM 


277 


but,  although  successful  in  gathering  about  him  many  fol 
lowers,  he  finally  ended  on  the  cross.  The  fundamental  doc 
trine  of  his  system  is  that  of  a  dual  principle  of  creation,  the 
one  good  and  the  other  evil.  Between  them  is  the  opposition 
of  light  and  darkness.  Only  what  is  good  in  the  world  can 
ultimately  be  traced  to  God,  whereas  what  is  evil  must  have 
its  source  in  an  antagonistic  power.  This  power  has  its  con 
crete  existence  in  Satan  and  his  bad  angels,  whose  one  object 
it  is  to  destroy  the  work  of  God.  Primitive  man,  in  so  far 
as  the  spiritual  or  light-element  of  his  being  comes  in  ques 
tion,  had  his  existence  from  the  good  principle,  but  in  the 
struggle  which  ensued  between  good  and  evil  he  fell  into  the 
power  of  Satan.  Hence  man's  life  on  earth  is  a  perpetual 
warfare.  God  through  His  good  angels  draws  him  on  to 
virtuous  deeds,  whilst  Satan  through  his  bad  angels  drags 
him  into  sin.  Moreover  man  carries  the  elements  of  this 
struggle  in  his  own  composition.  His  spirit  is  of  God  and 
inclined  to  good,  but  his  body  is  from  Satan  and  essentially 
evil.  Only  in  so  far  as  the  spirit  emancipates  itself  from 
matter,  and  as  far  as  possible  avoids  all  contact  with  matter, 
does  man  triumph  over  the  powers  of  darkness. 

In  the  West  the  special  home  of  Manichseism  was  Procon 
sular  Africa,  where  it  gained  many  followers  among  the  edu 
cated  classes.  However,  owing  to  the  opposition  of  the  gov 
ernment,  it  there  developed  into  a  sort  of  secret  society,  having 
its  mysterious  initiations,  its  grades,  signs,  passwords,  and 
occult  doctrines,  whilst  outwardly  it  assumed  a  Christian  as 
pect.  Its  elect  were  styled  bishops,  its  inferior  officers  bore 
the  title  of  priests  and  deacons,  and  Christian  phraseology 
was  constantly  employed  to  allay  suspicion.  The  strength  of 
its  appeal  lay  chiefly  in  its  apotheosis  of  human  reason,  claim 
ing  to  have  an  answer  to  every  question  and  offering  to  ex 
plain  the  deepest  mysteries  of  the  Christian  religion.  It  was 
this  that  ensnared  Augustine,  whilst  still  an  ambitious  youth, 
and  held  him  captive  for  nine  long  years.  In  his  work  De 
Utilitate  Credendi,  which  was  addressed  to  his  friend  Hon- 
oratus,  he  says :  "  Thou  knowest,  Honoratus,  that  for  this 
reason  alone  did  we  fall  into  the  hands  of  these  men,  namely, 


278    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

that  they  professed  to  free  us  from  all  error,  and  bring  us 
to  God  by  pure  reason  alone,  without  that  terrible  principle 
of  authority."  2 

How  sadly  disappointed  he  was  in  what  he  actually  found, 
he  tells  us  in  his  Confessions,  where  he  thus  pours  out  his 
regret  and  sorrow  before  God :  "  I  fell,  therefore,  into  the 
hands  of  men  carnal  and  loquacious,  and  full  of  insane  pride, 
with  the  snares  of  Satan  on  their  lips,  and  a  birdlime  made  up 
of  the  syllables  of  Thy  name  and  that  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Paraclete.  These  names 
were  ever  on  their  lips,  but  only  on  their  lips ;  for  their  hearts 
were  void  of  truth.  And  they  incessantly  repeated  to  me, 
truth,  truth,  but  there  was  no  truth  in  them.  They  taught 
what  was  false,  not  only  about  Thee,  my  God,  who  art  the 
very  Truth,  but  even  about  the  elements  of  this  world,  Thy 
creatures."  3 

Thus  disillusioned,  he  took  up  his  pen  against  the  sect,  and 
thoroughly  refuted  the  specious  arguments  constantly  ad 
vanced  by  the  leaders  to  deceive  the  unwary.  In  394  he  wrote 
a  book  against  Adimantus,  the  first  apostle  of  Manichseism  in 
Africa,  and  another  against  The  Fundamental  Epistle  of 
Manic  hceus,  the  founder  of  the  sect.  Then  his  old  friend 
Faustus,  who  was  looked  up  to  by  the  Manichaeans  as  their 
great  champion,  published  a  voluminous  work  against  the  Cath 
olic  Church  and  the  Old  Testament,  which  Augustine  an 
swered,  paragraph  by  paragraph,  in  thirty-three  books.  In 
the  course  of  this  refutation  he  reveals  the  immoral  doctrines 
and  practices  of  the  elect,  which  were  not  generally  known  to 
the  rank  and  file  of  the  sectaries. 

Some  years  later,  in  404,  Augustine  held  a  three  days'  pub 
lic  discussion  with  Felix,  another  Manichaean  leader,  who  had 
come  to  Hippo  for  the  purpose  of  re-establishing  there  a  com 
munity  of  his  sect.  The  Acts  of  this  conference  were  after 
wards  published  in  two  books,  which  are  usually  cited  under 
the  title,  Contra  Felicem  Manich&um.  This  was  followed 
by  a  book  against  Secundinus,  who  had  urged  Augustine  to 

2  Util.  Cred.  I,  I.  8  Confess.,  Ill,  6. 


MANICHyEISM  AND  PRISCILLIANISM          279 

return  to  his  former  allegiance.  His  last  work  against  the 
Manichseans  was  composed  in  420,  comprising  two  books, 
Against  the  Adversaries  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets. 

Through  these  patient  labors  of  Augustine  many  individual 
heretics  were  converted  to  the  faith,  but  the  sect  as  such  still 
continued  to  flourish,  gradually  spreading  into  Gaul  and  Spain 
and  establishing  a  community  even  in  Rome.  Though  sub 
jected  to  fierce  persecution  by  the  Arian  Vandals,  who  about 
this  time  invaded  Africa,  they  tenaciously  clung  to  their  tenets, 
and  during  the  sixth  and  seventh  centuries  they  were  still  con 
sidered  sufficiently  dangerous  to  provoke  attacks  from  leading 
Christian  writers.  In  the  Middle  Ages  Manichseism  burst 
into  new  life  through  the  efforts  of  the  Cathari,  of  whom  / 
something  will  be  said  in  the  second  part  of  this  work. 

Closely  connected  with  Manichseism  was  another  error, 
which,  towards  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  made  its  appear 
ance  in  Spain.  This  is  known  to  history  as  Priscillianism. 
According  to  the  account  of  Sulpicius  Severus,4  who  wrote 
during  the  first  part  of  the  fifth  century,  the  orginator  of  this 
sect  was  a  certain  Marcus,  from  Memphis  in  Egypt,  who 
towards  370  came  to  Spain  and  there  gained  over  to  his  way 
of  thinking  a  noble  lady,  Agape,  and  the  rhetorician  Elpidius. 
These,  in  their  turn,  made  a  disciple  of  Priscillian,  "  a  man  of 
noble  birth,  of  great  riches,  bold,  restless,  eloquent,  learned 
through  much  reading,  and  very  ready  at  debate  and  discus 
sion."  5  He  became  the  leader  of  the  sect,  and  in  a  short  time 
gathered  about  him  a  large  following,  gaining  over  even  a 
number  of  bishops. 

This  drew  the  attention  of  ecclesiastical  superiors  to  the 
sect,  and  after  a  severe  denunciation  by  Hyginus,  bishop  of 
Cordova,  Priscillian  and  his  followers  were  condemned  by  the 
Synod  of  Saragossa,  in  380.  Unfortunately  the  suppression 
of  the  heresy  was  entrusted  to  Ithacius,  bishop  of  Ossanova, 
whose  violence  aroused  fierce  opposition  and  caused  even  a 
number  of  Catholics  to  espouse  the  cause  of  Priscillian. 
Among  these  latter  was  Hyginus,  the  first  opponent  of  the 

4  Hist.  Sacra,  II,  46-51.  B  ibid.  46. 


280    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

sect.  Priscillian  himself  was  shortly  after  consecrated  bishop 
of  Avila.  Then  the  Emperor  Gratian  was  appealed  to  by  the 
Catholic  party,  with  the  result  that  the  Priscillianists  were 
exiled.  However  they  managed  to  have  the  sentence  of  exile 
revoked,  and  when  Gratian  was  a  little  later  assassinated,  they 
resumed  their  proselytizing  with  renewed  vigor. 

Meanwhile  they  had  also  found  followers  in  Italy  and 
Aquitaine,  and  threatened  to  overrun  the  whole  of  Southern 
Europe.  This  led  Ithacius  to  seek  help  from  the  usurper 
Maximus,  who  had  established  himself  at  Treves.  By  his 
direction  a  synod  was  convened  at  Bordeaux,  but  Priscillian 
tried  to  evade  its  sentence  by  appealing  to  Maximus  himself. 
This,  as  the  event  proved,  was  an  unfortunate  move.  Anx 
ious  to  please  the  Catholic  party,  Maximus  was  bent  on  eradi 
cating  the  heresy  at  all  costs.  Although  Ithacius  withdrew 
from  the  prosecution  and  Martin  of  Tours  vigorously  pro 
tested  against  the  violent  measures  that  were  taken,  Priscil 
lian  and  several  of  his  followers  were  executed  on  the  charge 
of  having  practiced  magic,  whilst  others  were  sent  into  exile. 
It  was  a  disgraceful  proceeding  and  severely  condemned  by 
the  leading  Catholic  bishops.  Nor  did  it  have  the  desired 
effect  of  rooting  out  the  heresy.  The  sect  continued  to  flourish 
till  after  the  Council  of  Braga,  which  was  held  in  563.  From 
that  time  on  it  gradually  disappeared.6 

About  the  teaching  of  Priscillian  there  exists  at  present  a 
considerable  diversity  of  opinion,  owing  to  the  recent  dis 
covery  of  some  of  his  writings,  which  seem  to  contradict  the 
account  given  by  Sulpicius  Severus  and  other  early  authori 
ties.  As  the  matter  is  stilll  undecided,  it  is  advisable  to  give 
here  simply  the  findings  of  the  Council  of  Braga,  which  is  in 
nearly  every  instance  confirmed  by  writers  who  were  practi 
cally  contemporaneous  with  the  first  rise  and  spread  of  Pris- 
cillianism.  These  findings  are  embodied  in  seventeen  propo 
sitions,  fifteen  of  which  are  exclusively  concerned  with  doc 
trinal  matters.  In  substance  they  read  as  follows : 7 

6  Cfr.  Tixeront,  H.  D.  II,  229-241.      cyklopaedie     f uer     Protestantische 
A    somewhat    different    account    is      Theologie  und  Kirche,  16,  5Q-65- 
given  by  Fr.  Lezins,  in  the  Realen-         7  Cfr.  Mansi,  9,  774  sqq. 


MANICH^EISM  AND  PRISCILLIANISM          281 

i°.  Like  Sabellius,  Priscillian  does  not  admit  three  distinct 
persons  in  the  Godhead,  but  holds  that  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost  are  one  and  the  same. 

2°.  Like  the  Gnostics,  he  admits  other  unintelligible  names 
in  the  Godhead,  saying  that  the  divinity  itself  is  a  trinity  of 
the  Trinity. 

3°.  Following  Paul  of  Samosata  and  Photinus,  he  says  that 
the  Son  of  God,  our  Lord,  did  not  exist  before  He  was  born 
of  the  Virgin. 

4°.  With  Cerdo,  Marcion,  and  Manichaeus,  he  denies  that 
Christ  came  in  a  true  human  nature,  and  therefore  he  fasts 
on  the  anniversary  of  Christ's  birth  and  also  on  Sundays. 

5°.  With  Manichaeus  he  holds  that  human  souls  and  angels 
are  emanations  of  the  divine  substance. 

6°.  He  also  maintains  that  human  souls  at  first  dwelt  in 
heaven  and  there  fell  into  sin,  and  on  account  of  this  they  were 
cast  into  the  bodies  of  men  upon  earth. 

7°.  Adopting  the  teaching  of  Manichaeus,  he  contends  that 
the  devil  was  not  created  by  God  as  a  good  angel,  but  of 
himself  came  forth  from  darkness  and  is  in  his  very  being 
the  principle  and  substance  of  evil. 

8°.  He  says  that  some  creatures  are  the  work  of  the  devil, 
who  also  causes  thunder  and  lightning  and  storms  and 
droughts. 

9°.  Like  the  pagans  of  old,  he  teaches  that  human  souls  are 
subject  to  fate. 

10°.  He  also  holds  that  the  twelve  signs  of  the  zodiac  cor 
respond  to  the  various  parts  of  the  human  soul  and  body,  and 
are  connected  with  the  names  of  the  Patriarchs. 

11°.  Like  Manichaeus  he  condemns  marriage  and  abhors 
the  procreation  of  children. 

12°.  Again  like  Manichaeus  he  maintains  that  the  formation 
of  the  child's  body  in  its  mother's  womb  is  the  work  of  the 
demons,  and  for  that  reason  he  does  not  believe  in  the  resur 
rection  of  the  body. 

13°.  He  contends  that  the  body  of  man  is  not  the  work 
of  God,  but  of  the  bad  angels. 

14°.  With  Manichaeus  he  holds  that  flesh  meat,  which  God 


282    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

has  given  for  the  use  of  man,  is  unclean,  and  for  that  reason 
he  abstains  from  it,  and  even  from  vegetables  cooked  with 
meat. 

15°.  He  perverts  the  Scriptures  and  wrests  their  teaching 
to  the  support  of  his  own  errors. 

In  view  of  these  propositions,  which,  as  already  stated,  are 
supported  by  the  testimony  of  the  most  ancient  writers,  Pris- 
cillianism  may  well  be  regarded  as  "  a  mixture  of  Gnosticism 
and  Manichaeism,  a  composite  system  in  which  there  are  ele 
ments  of  dualism,  astrology,  Pythagorism,  Docetism,  and  im 
moderate  Encratism  —  the  whole  combined  with  Sabellianism 
and  some  Origenistic  tenets."  8 

B  —  THE  PROBLEM  OF  EVIL 

Manichseism,  and  to  some  extent  Priscillianism  also,  may 
be  regarded  as  another  of  the  many  Oriental  attempts  to  solve 
the  problem  of  evil  in  the  world.  The  human  mind  shrinks 
from  looking  upon  the  good  God  as  the  cause  of  evil,  and 
yet  if  evil  is  not  caused  by  God,  whence  does  it  come?  Its 
universal  and  unavoidable  presence  seems  to  postulate  a  uni 
versal  and  self-existing  cause,  and  if  this  cannot  be  identified 
with  God,  there  appears  to  be  no  escape  from  the  inference 
that  there  is  a  second  principle  of  creation,  whose  productive 
efforts  necessarily  tend  to  mar  the  work  of  the  Creator-God. 
This  idea  seems  to  be  at  the  root  of  Oriental  dualism  and  most 
likely  inspired  the  dreams  of  Mani. 

It  was  largely  in  reference  to  this  point  that  Catholic  writers 
discussed  the  question  of  creation  with  the  Manichsean  sec 
taries.  They  emphasized  the  teaching  of  faith  that  God  is 
the  sole  author  of  the  world  and  the  endless  variety  of  beings 
it  contains,  that  He  created  them  by  His  all-powerful  will, 
made  them  all  the  beneficiaries  of  His  goodness,  and  never 
ceases  from  directing  them  wisely  to  their  appointed  end. 
"  Believe,"  says  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  "  that  the  whole  world, 
the  visible  as  well  as  the  invisible,  was  made  by  God  out 
of  nothing,  that  it  is  governed  by  the  Creator's  providence, 

8  Cfr.  Tixeront,  op.  cit.  237. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  EVIL  283 

and  is  destined  for  a  more  exalted  end."  9  They  readily  ad 
mitted  the  prevalence  of  evil  in  the  world,  and  also  that  its 
presence  in  a  world  created  by  the  good  God  enshrouds  the 
problem  in  a  deep  mystery ;  but  they  were  agreed  that  its  solu 
tion,  in  so  far  as  it  may  be  attempted  by  the  human  mind,  must 
be  sought  in  an  abuse  of  man's  free  will,  which  destroyed  his 
primitive  happiness  and  made  him  the  prey  of  temptation  and 
sin,  of  sickness  and  death. 

It  was  especially  St.  Augustin  who  defended  this  view 
against  the  Manichseans,  and  thus  solved  the  problem  of  evil 
in  so  far  as  it  admits  of  a  human  solution.  Having  himself 
been  a  follower  of  the  sect  for  nine  years,  he  fully  understood 
their  position,  and  also  remembered  the  difficulties  which  he 
had  encountered  during  those  years  of  conflict.  Hence  the 
memorable  words  with  which  he  opens  his  refutation  of  the 
Manichsean  errors.  "  May  the  omnipotent  God,"  he  says, 
"  the  giver  of  all  good  gifts,  enable  me  to  refute  your  errors 
with  a  calm  and  peaceful  mind,  bent  more  on  your  conversion 
than  your  ruin.  Let  those  be  angry  with  you  who  know  not 
what  it  costs  to  arrive  at  the  truth.  Let  those  be  angry  with 
you  who  were  never  held  captive  in  the  same  errors.  For 
my  part,  having  been  long  held  captive  in  them ;  having  heard 
and  studied  and  rashly  believed  them;  having  obstinately  de 
fended  and  zealously  propagated  them ;  having  at  last  escaped 
from  them  only  by  the  merciful  intervention  of  the  Sovereign 
Physician  of  my  soul;  never  can  I  bring  myself  to  be  angry 
with  you,  but,  on  the  contrary,  I  shall  always  feel  obliged  to 
extend  to  you  that  forbearance  which  my  friends  extended  to 
me  when  I  wandered  blindly  and  madly  in  your  errors."  10 

Again,  in  his  Confessions  he  states :  "  Whence  does  evil 
come,  I  asked,  and  there  was  no  solution."  1X  It  was  only 
when  he  became  familiar  with  the  Catholic  view  that  the 
solution  suggested  itself  to  his  searching  mind.  In  a  few 
words  it  comes  to  this.  It  is  an  absurdity  to  say  that  evil 
is  a  positive  being,  in  itself  an  existing  reality.  Evil  is  a 
defect,  a  negation  of  good.  "  It  is  nothing  else  than  a  cor- 

9  Orat.  40,  46.  "  Confess.  7,  II. 

10  Cont.  Ep.  Fundam. 


284    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

ruption  either  of  the  condition  of  beings,  or  of  their  nature, 
or  of  the  natural  order  of  things."  12  Hence_there  can  be_  no 
evi^  by  nature.  "  In  itself  all  nature  is  good,  and  it  is  only 
through  a  diminution  of  what  is  good  that  it  is  affected  by 
evil."  13 

This  evil  may  be  divided  into  three  different  kinds :  Meta 
physical,  Physical,  and  Moral.  The  first  is  evil  only  in  an 
improper  sense  of  the  term,  being  nothing  more  than  merely 
natural  limitations.  Thus  every  created  being  is  necessarily 
finite,  and  the  very  fact  of  its  being  finite  denotes  the  absence 
of  higher  perfections  than  are  due  to  its  nature.14  The  second 
is  real  evil,  but  wholly  confined  to  the  natural  order  of  things. 
It  consists  in  the  privation  of  a  perfection  which  is  in  some 
way  due  to  the  nature  of  a  given  individual.  Thus  by  nature 
man  wras  intended  to  have  the  use  of  his  bodily  senses;  if  he 
is  deprived  of  it,  whether  congenitally  or  in  later  life,  he  is 
afflicted  by  a  physical  evil.15  This  God  in  His  wise  providence 
sometimes  permits,  and  sometimes  positively  inflicts  as  a  pun 
ishment  for  sins.  The  third  is  an  evil  in  the  strictest  sense  of 
the  term,  and  consists  in  the  privation  of  a  moral  perfection 
that  is  due  under  given  conditions.  This  results  only  from 
an  abuse  of  free  will  by  a  reasonable  creature.  When  man 
sins,  for  instance,  he  thereby  loses  God's  grace,  which  is  an 
evil  beyond  all  calculation;  but  the  evil  is  of  his  own  making 
and  was  not  intended  by  God,  except  as  a  consequence  of 
sin.la 

In  this  exposition,  which  he  amplified  on  various  occasions, 
St.  Augustine  clearly  formulated  the  Catholic  doctrine  on  the 
question  of  evil,  and  subsequent  writers  did  little  more  than 
apply  the  principles  which  he  had  drawn  with  unerring  logic 
from  reason  and  faith. 

C  —  THE  WORK  OF  CREATION 

There  are  few  doctrines  that  were  from  the  very  first  set 
forth  more  clearly  and  definitely  than  that  of  creation.  Even 

12  De  Nat.  Boni,  4.  ™  Ibid.  10. 

13  Ibid.  17.  16  De  Duab.  Anim.  14;  15. 

14  De  Nat.  Boni,  8,  16,  23. 


THE  WORK  OF  CREATION  285 

the  Apostolic  Fathers,  as  we  have  seen,  were  quite  explicit 
on  that  point.  The  Apologists,  too,  brought  it  out  as  occasion 
required;  and  so  did  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  and  the 
Alexandrians,  Clement  and  Origen.  Among  the  orthodox 
there  never  was  any  dissension  about  the  matter,  but  pagan 
philosophers  and  heretical  innovators  made  it  necessary  that 
this  fundamental  doctrine  should  be  placed  in  the  clearest  light. 
However  it  was  mainly  the  fact  of  creation  that  was  em 
phasized  ;  merely  theoretical  aspects  of  the  question  were  usu 
ally  relegated  to  the  background.  All  of  these  writers  main 
tained  that  the  world  was  created  out  of  nothing,  that  it  was 
called  into  existence  by  the  Father,  through  the  Son;  and,  as 
some  added,  in  the  Holy  Spirit. 

It  was  in  this  condition  that  the  great  theologians  of  the 
fourth  century  found  the  doctrine  when  they  were  called  upon 
to  defend  it  against  heretics  or  explain  it  to  the  people.  They 
developed  it  to  some  extent,  but  principally  in  reference  to 
other  points  of  doctrine  which  then  formed  the  chief  subjects 
of  discussion.  A  few  citations  will  suffice  to  bring  out  their 
views  on  the  matter  in  question. 

Emphasizing  the  fact  that  God  created  the  world  out  of 
nothing,  St.  Athanasius  writes :  "  Some,  among  whom  is  also 
enumerated  the  great  Plato,  assert  that  God  made  everything 
out  of  preexisting  matter;  for,  say  they,  God  could  not  have 
made  anything  if  matter  had  not  already  existed,  similarly 
as  the  wood  which  the  carpenter  uses  must  first  exist  before 
he  can  make  anything  out  of  it. 

"  See,  then  what  foolish  babble  they  give  out.  But  the  di 
vine  teaching  and  the  faith  of  Christ  utterly  rejects  this  non 
sense  as  a  detestable  impiety.  For  it  knows  that  things  were 
not  made  fortuitously,  because  everything  is  governed  by  Prov 
idence,  nor  were  things  made  of  preexisting  matter,  because 
God  is  not  wanting  in  power;  He  made  all  things,  in  nowise 
as  yet  existing,  out  of  nothing  through  the  Word,  and  thus 
caused  them  to  be,  as  He  said  through  Moses :  *  In  the  begin 
ning  God  made  heaven  and  earth.'  "  17 

17  De  Incarn.  2. 


286    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

With  this  view  of  creation  the  other  writers  are  in  full 
agreement.  Hence  St.  Chrysostom  states :  "  To  say  that  the 
things  which  are  were  made  out  of  preexisting  matter,  and 
not  to  confess  that  the  Maker  of  all  things  created  them  out 
of  nothing,  is  a  sign  of  extreme  foolishness."  18 

God  was  always  Creator,  but  the  created  universe  began  in 
time.  From  this  universally  admitted  fact  the  Arians  at 
tempted  to  refute  their  Catholic  opponents,  who  inferred  from 
God's  eternal  Fatherhood  that  the  Son  existed  from  all  eter 
nity.  This  inference,  the  Arians  contended,  cannot  be  valid; 
for  all  admit  that  God  was  always  Creator,  and  yet  there  was 
a  time  when  the  world  did  not  exist:  hence  although  He  was 
always  Father,  it  does  not  follow  that  He  always  had  a  Son. 
Athanasius  replied  to  this  argument  by  making  a  distinction 
between  divine  generation  and  the  act  of  creation.  "  Crea 
tures,"  he  says,  "  were  made  out  of  nothing,  they  were  not 
before  they  were  made;  how  then  could  they  eternally  coexist 
with  God,  who  always  is?  ...  But  the  Son  necessarily  al 
ways  exists,  because  He  is  not  the  work  of  the  Father  but  is 
proper  to  His  very  nature.  For  as  God  is  always  Father, 
that  also  must  always  be  which  is  proper  to  His  nature,  which 
same  is  both  His  Word  and  His  Wisdom."  19 

God  created  the  world  freely,  but  He  generated  the  Son 
through  a  necessity  of  the  divine  nature.  For  the  nonexist- 
ence  of  creatures  does  not  detract  from  the  perfection  of  their 
Maker,  as  He  can  produce  them  at  any  time  according  to  His 
good  pleasure;  but  if  the  Son  were  not  always  with  the  Father, 
the  result  would  be  a  diminution  of  the  divine  perfection. 
Hence  His  created  works  God  produced  through  the  Son  when 
it  pleased  Him;  but  His  Son  always  is,  because  He  is  the 
proper  offspring  of  His  nature.20 

This  free  creation  of  the  world  was  the  outcome  of  God's 
goodness,  as  is  thus  clearly  expressed  by  St.  Hilary.  "  God 
created  man  not  because  He  had  need  of  his  services  in  any 
way,  but  because  He  is  good.  He  called  into  existence  a 
sharer  in  His  own  blessedness,  and  He  endowed  the  animal 

18  In  Gen.  Horn.  2,  2.  20  Ibid. 

19  Adv.  Arian.  I,  29. 


THE  WORK  OF  CREATION  287 

rationale  with  life  and  understanding  for  the  purpose  of  be 
stowing  upon  him  His  own  eternity."  21  Hence  the  ultimate 
end  which  God  had  in  view  in  creating  the  world  was  His  own 
glorification  through  man's  eternal  happiness,  and  also  through 
the  eternal  happiness  of  the  blessed  angels."  22 

The  creative  act  whereby  the  world  was  called  into  being 
must  be  attributed  to  the  whole  Trinity,  Father,  Son  and  Holy 
Ghost,  as  having  but  one  will  and  one  power.  "  The  Father," 
says  St.  Ephrem,  "  is  the  Genitor,  the  Son  is  begotten  in 
His  bosom,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  the  Father  and 
the  Son.  The  Father  is  the  Maker  who  made  the  world  out 
of  nothing,  the  Son  is  the  Creator  who  together  with  the 
Father  called  the  universe  into  being,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the 
Paraclete  and  the  merciful  Dispenser,  by  whom  all  that  was 
and  is  and  will  be  is  perfected.  The  Father  is  the  Mind,  the 
Son  is  the  Word,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Voice  —  three  names, 
but  one  will  and  one  power."  23 

Moreover  this  creative  act  is  such  that  it  lies  entirely  beyond 
the  power  of  any  and  every  finite  being.  Hence  the  very  fact 
that  the  Son  is  the  creator  of  the  world  shows  Him  to  be 
truly  God.  This  is  strongly  brought  out  by  Athanasius  in  his 
writings  against  the  Arians.  "  For  how  is  it  possible,"  he 
asks,  "  that  He  should  produce  the  things  that  are  not,  if  He 
Himself,  as  you  think,  wras  made  out  of  nothing?  For  if 
He,  although  Himself  created,  could  produce  a  creature,  then 
certainly  the  same  must  also  be  assumed  in  regard  to  other 
creatures,  namely  that  they  also  have  power  to  create.  And 
if  this  is  conceded  by  you,  what  need  was  there  of  the  Word, 
since  inferior  beings  could  thus  be  produced  by  those  of  a 
higher  order,  or,  to  say  the  least,  since  each  single  being  could 
in  the  beginning  have  heard  from  God :  '  Be  thou  made,'  or, 
'  Be  ye  made/  and  thus  they  would  have  been  produced.  But 
this  is  neither  written  nor  could  in  any  way  be.  For  none  of 
those  things  that  are  made  can  be  a  creative  cause;  for  all 
things  were  made  through  the  Word,  and  this  would  certainly 
not  be  true  if  the  Word  also  belonged  to  the  category  of  cre- 

21  Tract,  super.  Ps.  I,  2,  15.  **De  Def.  et  Trin.  n,  12. 

22  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  38,  9. 


288    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

ated  beings.  And  indeed  not  even  the  angels  can  create, 
seeing  that  they  too  have  been  created,  although  this  is  held 
by  Valentinus,  Marcion,  and  Basilides,  whose  rivals  you 
are."  ™ 

These  few  citations  are  sufficient  to  indicate  what  were  the 
general  views  entertained  at  the  time  in  regard  to  the  work 
of  creation.  The  matter  was  somewhat  more  fully  treated 
by  Augustine,  whose  teaching  on  this  point  may  be  briefly 
summarized  as  follows: 

In  regard  to  the  various  points  already  touched  upon  in  the 
preceding  paragraphs,  he  is  in  full  agreement  with  his  con 
temporaries.  "  God,"  he  says,  "  is  most  properly  believed  to 
have  made  all  things  out  of  nothing,  for,  although  the  things 
that  were  formed  (in  the  second  creation)  were  made  of 
existing  matter,  nevertheless  this  matter  itself  was  made  abso 
lutely  out  of  nothing."  25  Hence  the  author  distinguishes  two 
moments  of  creation :  the  production  of  matter  and  spirits  out 
of  nothing,  and  the  organization  of  the  material  universe. 
The  first  he  finds  recorded  in  verses  one  and  two  of  Genesis, 
and  the  second  in  the  subsequent  verses  of  the  first  chapter.26 

The  creative  act  is  common  to  the  three  Divine  Persons  in 
such  a  way  that  there  is  only  one  Creator,  and  it  is  of  such  a 
nature  that  the  creature  has  nothing  in  common  with  the 
being  of  the  Godhead.  "  That  this  Trinity,  therefore,  is 
called  one  God,  and  that  He  made  and  created  all  things  that 
are,  in  as  much  as  they  are,  Catholic  teaching  bids  us  to  be 
lieve;  so  that  all  creatures,  whether  intellectual  or  corporal, 
or  to  put  it  briefly  according  to  the  words  of  Holy  Scripture, 
whether  invisible  or  visible,  are  not  born  of  God,  but  are 
made  by  God  out  of  nothing;  and  that  there  is  nothing  in 
them  that  is  part  of  the  Trinity,  only  that  the  Trinity  pro 
duced  them  all.  Wherefore  it  is  not  lawful  either  to  say  or 
to  believe  that  creatures  are  consubstantial  with  God  or  co- 
eternal."  27  And  again :  "  In  regard  to  creatures  the  Father 
and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  one  principle,  as  also  one 
Creator  and  one  Lord.28 

2*  Adv.  Arian.  2,  21.  27  De  Gen.  ad  Lit.  Imperf.  I. 

25  De  Gen.  Cont.  Manich.  I,  6,  10.          28  De  Trin.  5,  14,  15. 

26  Ibid,  i,  7,  ii. 


THE  WORK  OF  CREATION  289 

Creation,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  presupposes  omni 
potence  in  the  Creator,  so  that  it  lies  beyond  the  reach  of  any 
finite  power.  "  To  make  a  thing  out  of  nothing,  to  cause 
that  to  be  which  in  no  wise  exists,  is  not  within  the  power 
of  man.  Whilst  God,  because  He  is  omnipotent,  begot  His 
Son  of  Himself,  and  made  the  world  out  of  nothing,  and 
formed  man  from  the  slime  of  the  earth,  so  that  through  this 
threefold  power  He  made  it  manifest  that  His  production 
reaches  out  to  all  things."  29  Again :  "  Angels  cannot  create 
any  nature ;  for  the  only  and  one  Creator  of  every  nature, 
whether  great  or  small,  is  God,  that  is,  the  Trinity  itself,  the 
Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit."  30 

Although  the  world  was  created  in  time,  nevertheless  God 
did  not  for  that  reason  undergo  any  change ;  for  "  by  one  and 
the  same  eternal  and  immutable  will  He  brought  it  about  that 
the  things  which  He  made  should  first  not  be,  so  long  as  they 
were  not,  and  afterwards  should  be,  when  they  began  to 
exist"  31 

God  created  the  world  in  accordance  with  a  definite  plan, 
and  the  archetypes  of  beings  to  be  created  were  from  all  eter 
nity  in  His  mind.  For  to  say  that  anything  outside  of  Him 
self  served  Him  as  a  model  would  be  a  sacrilege.  Hence  these 
archetypes  are  eternal  and  unchangeable  and  true.  It  was  to 
them  that  Plato  referred  when  he  taught  the  existence  of  an 
ideal  world,  and  it  is  by  participating  in  them  that  created 
beings  are.32 

This,  however,  did  not  interfere  with  His  freedom  in  cre 
ating:  He  made  all  things,  not  because  He  was  forced 
thereto,  but  because  He  so  willed.  The  cause  of  all  His 
works  is  His  free  will.33  And  the  reason  why  His  free  will 
called  creatures  into  being  is  His  goodness.  For  the  words, 
God  saw  that  it  was  good,  "  make  it  sufficiently  clear  that  God 
made  the  things  which  He  did  make,  not  through  any  neces 
sity,  nor  because  of  any  need  He  had  of  their  usefulness,  but 
solely  on  account  of  His  goodness,  id  est,  quia  bonum  est."  34 

29  Cont.  Felic.  2,  18.  32  De  Div.  Quaest,  46,  2. 

80  De  Civit.  Dei,  12,  17,  2.  33  Enarrat,  in  Ps.  134,  10. 

81  De  Trin.  9,  15,  26.  84De  Civit.  Dei,  n,  24. 


290 


FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 


The  beings  thus  created  by  God  depend  constantly  on  His 
sustaining  power  for  their  continued  existence.  Hence  when 
it  is  said  in  Holy  Scripture  that  on  the  seventh  day  God  rested 
from  His  work,  that  is  to  be  understood  in  reference  to  crea 
tion  of  new  species,  and  not  in  regard  to  the  kinds  of  beings 
already  called  into  existence ;  for  if  He  were  to  withdraw  His 
sustaining  power  from  them,  they  would  instantly  fall  back 
into  nothingness.35 

All  these  points,  though  brought  out  more  fully  by  Augus 
tine,  were  contained  in  the  common  teaching  at  the  time.  He 
added,  however,  some  speculations  of  his  own.  In  the  first 
place,  he  contended  that  all  things  were  created  together  in 
one  instant  of  time,  regarding  the  six  days  of  Genesis  merely 
as  a  convenient  division  adopted  by  the  sacred  writer  for  the 
purpose  of  reducing  his  narrative  to  a  certain  order.  For  "  of 
the  same  Creator  of  whom  Holy  Scripture  narrates  that  He 
consummated  all  his  works  in  six  days,  it  elsewhere  not  incon 
sistently  states  that  He  created  all  things  together.  Whence 
it  appears  that  He  made  the  six  or  seven  days,  or  rather  the 
one  day  six  or  seven  times  repeated,  all  at  once,  because  He 
made  all  things  together."  36 

However  this  must  not  be  understood  in  the  sense  that  all 
things  then  already  obtained  their  actual  and  complete  being. 
What  God  really  did  create  in  that  first  instant  of  time,  in  so 
far  as  this  visible  universe  comes  in  question,  was  matter 
with  all  its  potencies,  predispositions,  and  tendencies  to  evolve 
under  given  conditions  into  those  species  and  varieties  of 
beings  that  were  ultimately  intended  by  the  Creator.  For 
"  there  are  in  corporeal  things,  embracing  all  the  elements  of 
the  world,  certain  occult  seminal  causes  ( seminarian  rationes), 
by  reason  of  which,  when  the  opportunity  offers  itself  in  the 
lapse  of  time  and  the  proper  causes  are  at  hand,  they  evolve 
into  the  species  that  are  due  to  their  mode  of  being  and  to 
the  end  intended.  And  hence  the  angels,  who  cause  animals 
to  be,  are  not  called  their  creators,  as  also  farmers  are  not 
called  the  creators  of  their  crops,  or  of  trees,  or  of  whatever 
else  the  earth  brings  forth,  although  they  know  how  to  pro- 

35  De  Gen.  ad  Lit.  4,  12,  22.  36  Ibid.  4,  33,  52. 


THE  WORK  OF  CREATION  291 

vide  certain  visible  opportunities  and  causes  for  the  purpose 
of  bringing  these  things  into  being.  And  what  farmers  do 
visibly,  that  the  angels  do  invisibly;  but  God  alone  is  the  one 
Creator,  who  implanted  in  things  the  causes  themselves  and 
the  seminal  reasons."  37 

In  this  sense  the  human  body  also  was  created  in  that  first 
instant  of  time,  but  not  the  soul.  "  Let  it,  therefore,  be  be 
lieved,  if  not  against  Scripture  or  reason,  that  man  was  so 
made  on  the  sixth  day,  that  the  causal  reason  (ratio  causalis) 
of  the  human  body  was  created  among  the  elements  of  the 
world;  but  the  soul  itself,  created  as  the  first  day  was  created, 
was  reserved  among  the  works  of  God  until  it  should  be 
breathed  in  its  own  time  into  a  body  formed  of  slime."  38 

Augustine's  doctrine  on  the  points  in  question  is  condensed 
into  this  single  passage :  "  In  that  first  framing  of  the  world 
the  future  man  was  made;  the  reason  of  the  man  that  was 
to  be  created,  not  the  man  actually  created.  But  these  things 
take  one  form  in  the  Word  of  God,  where  they  are  eternal, 
not  made;  another  in  the  elements  of  the  world,  where  all 
things  to  be  are  created  together ;  another  in  the  things  which 
are  created  in  their  own  time,  not  all  together,  but  according 
to  the  causes  created  together."  39 

At  first  sight  all  this  looks  very  much  like  the  modern  theory 
of  evolution,  in  as  much  as  unformed  matter  is  said  to  have 
been  endowed  with  the  potency  of  evolving  itself  under  given 
conditions  into  different  species  of  beings.  However  upon 
closer  examination  it  is  found  that  this  was  not  in  the  mind 
of  Augustine.  For  although  the  rationes  seminales  were  im 
planted  in  matter  at  the  beginning  of  time,  nevertheless  the 
actual  production  of  finally  complete  beings  is  according  to 
him  the  work  of  God,  and  not  of  matter  alone.  Hence  he 
writes :  "  The  earth  is  then  said  to  produce  the  herb  and  the 
tree  causally  —  that  is,  it  received  the  power  to  produce  them. 
For  in  it  were  now  made,  as  if  in  the  roots  of  time,  those 
things  which  were  afterwards  to  be  produced  in  the  course  of 
time.  God  afterwards  planted  paradise,  and  brought  forth 

37  In  Heptat.  2,  21.  39  Ibid.  6,  10. 

38  De  Gen.  ad  Lit.  7,  24. 


292    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

of  this  earth  all  manner  of  trees  fair  to  behold  and  pleasant  to 
eat  of ;  but  we  must  not  suppose  that  He  added  any  new  species 
(creatura)  which  He  had  not  previously  made,  and  which 
was  needed  to  complete  that  perfection  of  which  it  is  said 
that  they  were  good.  No,  for  all  the  species  of  plants  and 
trees  had  been  produced  in  the  first  creation  (conditione), 
from  which  God  rested,  thenceforth  moving  and  administer 
ing,  as  time  went  on,  those  same  things  which  He  had  formed. 
Not  only  did  He  then  plant  paradise,  but  even  now  all  things 
,that  are  produced.  For  who  else  creates  them  now  but  He 
who  worketh  until  now?  For  He  creates  them  now  from 
things  that  already  exist;  then,  when  they  had  no  existence 
whatever,  and  when  that  day  (the  first)  was  made."  40 

What  precisely  Augustine  understood  by  these  rationes  of 
things,  in  so  far  as  they  are  precontained  in  corporeal  ele 
ments,  is  not  very  clear.  He  sharply  distinguishes  two  kinds : 
the  rationes  causales  and  the  rationes  seminales.  Thus  he 
would  call  the  qualities  of  wood,  which  enable  us  to  convert 
it  into  fire,  its  causal  reasons,  and  the  qualities  of  seeds,  which 
make  them  develop  into  one  kind  of  plant  rather  than  into 
another,  their  seminal  reasons.41  Yet  it  is  to  be  noticed,  as 
modern  critics  point  out,  that  whenever  he  uses  the  form 
rationes  seminales  in  connection  with  matter  as  first  created, 
he  invariably  modifies  it  by  "  quasi  "  or  its  equivalents.42 
Hence  the  other  expressions,  obviously  used  in  the  same  sense : 
"  modorum  rationes,"  43  "  f  ormabilitas,"  44  "  potentia."  45  The 
form  most  commonly  employed  in  this  connection  is  "  rationes 
causales,"  to  which  correspond  the  adverbial  expressions 
"  causaliter "  and  "  potentialiter."  Hence  that  he  ascribes 
some  kind  of  casuality  to  these  rationes  is  obvious;  but  of 
what  kind  it  is  he  nowhere  states. 

*o  Ibid.  5,  4.  43  Ibid.  9,  32. 

41  Cfr.  De  Gen.  ad  Lit.  9,  17,  32.  **  Ibid.  5,  16. 

42  Cfr.  Ibid.  4,  51 ;  6,  8,  n,  18;  9,  46  Ibid.  5,  44. 
32- 


CHAPTER  XIX 
ANGELOLOGY :    ANTHROPOLOGY 

In  the  foregoing  chapter  a  brief  outline  has  been  given  of 
the  doctrine  on  creation  in  general,  which  must  now  be  supple 
mented  by  a  short  account  of  what  was  held  in  regard  to 
God's  noblest  creatures,  the  angels  and  man.  In  this  there 
is  no  need  of  inquiring  into  the  mere  fact  of  their  having  been 
created  by  God;  for  that  was  never  made  a  matter  of  discus 
sion  among  Catholic  writers,  nor  is  it  a  subject  that  admits 
of  doctrinal  development.  It  is  rather  their  nature,  their 
primitive  condition,  and  their  final  destiny  that  comes  up  for 
investigation.  No  special  treatises  were  written  on  these  sub 
jects  in  Patristic  times;  still  in  their  sermons  to  the  people, 
and  especially  in  their  homilies  on  passages  of  Holy  Scrip 
ture,  the  various  writers  found  occasion  to  set  forth  the  com 
mon  teaching,  and  incidentally  also  to  develop  their  own  ideas. 
As  we  shall  see,  concepts  on  several  of  these  matters  were 
still  somewhat  vague,  so  that  there  was  considerable  room  for 
doctrinal  development. 

A  —  ANGELOLOGY 

Regarding  the  angels,  which  were  from  the  very  beginning 
of  Christianity  looked  upon  as  the  first  creatures  of  God,  early 
orthodox  teaching  was  little  more  than  a  reproduction  of 
Scriptural  data.  Nor  did  the  fourth-century  writers  go  much 
beyond  this.  They  had  no  occasion  to  defend  the  Church's 
doctrine  on  this  subject  against  adversaries,  and  so  they  ex 
pressed  their  views  concerning  it  only  in  a  casual  way,  and 
usually  in  connection  with  other  matters.  Still  they  touched 
on  nearly  every  point  of  the  doctrine,  and  incidentally  also 
contributed  something  to  its  gradual  development.  Hence  a 
few  remarks  on  their  teaching  will  be  in  place  here,  to  which 

293 


294    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

may  be  added  a  summary  statement  of  what  was  accom 
plished  by  subsequent  writers. 

A  fair  outline  of  the  doctrine,  as  it  was  commonly  under 
stood  during  the  fourth  century,  is  thus  given  by  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus :  "  Angels  are  called  spirits  and  fire :  spirits  be 
cause  they  are  endowed  with  an  intellectual  nature ;  fire,  because 
they  take  part  in  the  purification  of  our  souls.  Sometimes 
also  these  names  are  primarily  used  to  signify  the  angelic 
essence.  In  respect  to  us  they  are  indeed  incorporeal,  or  at 
least  very  nearly  approaching  thereto.  You  see,  then,  how 
hard  we  try  to  throw  some  light  on  this  matter,  and  yet  we 
are  not  able  to  proceed  very  far;  or  certainly  we  cannot  go 
beyond  the  statement  that  some  of  them  are  Angels,  others 
Archangels,  others  Thrones,  Powers,  Principalities,  Domina 
tions,  Splendors,  Sublimities,  Intellectual  Powers,  or  rather 
Minds,  pure  natures,  in  no  wise  adulterated,  immovable  in 
respect  of  evil,  or  certainly  not  easily  moved  thereto,  forever 
gathered  in  jubilant  ranks  around  the  First  Cause ;  .  .  .  chant 
ing  the  praises  of  the  Divine  Majesty,  and  unceasingly  be 
holding  that  everlasting  glory,  not  that  thereby  the  glory  of 
God  receives  an  increase  (for  there  is  nothing  that  can  be 
added  to  the  glory  of  Him  who  possesses  all  and  is  the  author 
of  all  honors  that  accrue  to  others),  but  rather  that  these 
natures,  first  after  God,  may  not  cease  to  be  filled  with  bless- 
ings."  * 

As  is  sufficiently  evident  from  this  passage,  the  details  of 
the  doctrine  were  at  the  time  not  well  determined.  The  au 
thor  does  not  know  whether  the  angels  are  pure  spirits, 
although  he  is  inclined  to  think  that  they  are.  St.  Basil,  on 
the  other  hand,  seems  quite  certain  that  they  are  not;  for  he 
writes :  "  The  substance  of  these  heavenly  powers  is  a  breath 
of  air,  or  an  immaterial  fire,  according  to  what  is  written: 
'  He  makes  His  angels  spirits,  and  His  ministers  a  flame  of 
fire ' ;  and  therefore  they  are  in  circumscribed  places,  and  be 
come  visible,  appearing  in  their  own  bodies  to  those  who  are 
worthy."  2  Gregory  of  Nyssa  states  that  "  rational  creatures 

1  Orat.  28,  31.  2  De  Spin  Sanct.  38. 


TEACHING  ON  THE  ANGELS  295 

are  divided  into  incorporeal  and  corporeal  nature.  The  angelic 
nature  is  incorporeal,  our  human  nature  is  corporeal.  The 
angelic  nature,  therefore,  is  intellectual,  and  free  from  a  body 
that  weighs  it  down  (from  a  body,  I  say,  that  is  rebellious 
and  ever  inclining  earthward) ;  destined  for  the  higher  regions, 
this  nature  dwells  in  lightsome  and  ethereal  places."  3  He 
too,  appears  to  have  some  doubt  concerning  their  absolute 
spirituality,  although  he  is  usually  cited  as  defending  it  without 
reserve. 

The  same  uncertainty  with  regard  to  this  point  is  found 
among  the  Latin  writers  of  this  period.  Some  of  them,  like 
Hilary  and  Ambrose,  were  inclined  to  believe  that  the  angels 
fell  through  unchastity,  sinning,  that  is,  with  the  "  daughters 
of  men,"  and  that  consequently  they  had  a  body.  Jerome 
rejects  this  interpretation  of  the  text  in  Genesis  altogether, 
but  at  the  same  time  confesses  that  about  the  nature  of  the 
angelic  substance  nothing  is  known.4  Augustine,  though  not 
pronouncing  definitely  on  the  merits  of  the  case,  for  his  own 
part  prefers  to  believe  that  angels  have  some  sort  of  body; 
this  being  more  in  accord  with  the  texts  of  Scripture  which 
speak  about  angels  appearing  to  men.5  This  also  helps  us  to 
explain  how  material  fire  can  torture  "  the  devil  and  his 
angels  "  in  hell.6 

It  was  not  until  the  end  of  the  fifth  century  that  belief  in 
the  absolute  spirituality  of  the  angelic  nature  became  general. 
This  was  primarily  owing  to  the  authority  of  the  Pseudo- 
Areopagite.  Although  he  was  some  unknown  fifth  century 
writer,  apparently  of  Monophysite  leanings,  he  purported  to 
be  the  Dionysius  of  Athens  mentioned  by  St.  Luke  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles.7  Hence  as  soon  as  his  writings  became 
known  they  obtained  great  vogue,  although  when  cited  for 
the  first  time  at  a  synod,  they  were  immediately  rejected  by 
the  Catholic  party  as  spurious.  He  represents  the  angels  as 
having  an  altogether  spiritual  nature,  a  simple  essence  which 
somewhat  resembles  the  simple  essence  of  God.  They  are 

3De  Orat.  Dom.  4.  6  Ibid.  21,   10,   I. 

4  In  Ezech.  27,  16.  7  Acts,  17,  34. 

5  Ep.  95,  8;  De  Civ.  Dei,  21,  10. 


296    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

entirely  intellectual  beings,  supramundane  spirits,  who  have 
no  body  of  any  kind.8  At  the  time  when  he  wrote  it  was 
indeed  already  quite  common  to  speak  of  the  angels  as 
do-w/xarot,  without  a  body ;  but  this  expression,  as  then  used, 
was  rather  indefinite,  frequently  excluding  only  a  gross  body 
like  ours.  Hence  little  can  be  inferred  from  it  in  regard  to 
the  absolute  spirituality  of  the  angels.  His  writings,  how 
ever,  are  quite  clear  and  definite  on  the  point :  angels  are  pure 
spirits.  Abbot  Maximus  incorporated  this  view  in  his  Scholia, 
and  from  that  time  forward  it  became  quite  general. 

To  the  same  Eastern  source  must  also  be  traced  our  present 
division  of  the  angelic  host  into  orders  and  choirs.  Gregory 
of  Nazianzus,  as  seen  above,  was  still  very  indefinite  on  this 
point;  and  so  were  his  contemporaries,  usually  employing  the 
designations  found  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  Dionysius, 
however,  introduced  a  definite  classification  of  the  heavenly 
spirits,  building  up  a  celestial  hierarchy  of  three  orders  and 
nine  choirs,  which  in  their  appointed  ranks  and  degrees  act 
as  intermediaries  between  God  and  man.9  After  him  Gregory 
the  Great  adopted  practically  the  same  classification,  founding 
it  upon  the  teaching  of  Holy  Scripture.  "  We  know,"  he 
says,  "  on  the  authority  of  Scripture  that  there  are  nine  choirs 
of  angels,  namely,  Angels,  Archangels,  Virtues,  Powers,  Prin 
cipalities,  Dominations,  Thrones,  Cherubim,  and  Seraphim. 
That  there  are  Angels  and  Archangels  nearly  every  page  of 
the  Bible  tells  us,  and  the  books  of  the  Prophets  speak  of 
Cherubim  and  Seraphim.  St.  Paul,  too,  writing  to  the 
Ephesians,  enumerates  four  orders  when  he  says :  '  Above 
all  Principality,  and  Power,  and  Virtue,  and  Domination ' ; 
and  again,  writing  to  the  Colossians  he  says :  '  Whether 
Thrones,  or  Dominations,  or  Principalities,  or  Powers.'  If 
we  now  join  these  lists  together,  we  have  five  choirs,  and 
adding  Angels  and  Archangels,  Cherubim  and  Seraphim,  we 
find  nine  choirs  of  angels."  10 

On  some  other  points,  however,  the  fourth-century  writers 
are  as  definite  as  their  successors  in  subsequent  ages.  They 

8De  Coel.  Hierarch.  4,  i,  2;  15,  I.          10  In  Evang.  Horn.  2,  34,  7. 
9  Ibid.  4,  3 ;  6,  2 ;  8,  2. 


TEACHING  ON  THE  ANGELS  297 

are  all  agreed  that  the  angels  were  created  by  God  for  the 
same  purpose  as  man,  to  render  their  Maker  faithful  service 
and  to  receive  from  Him  the  reward  of  eternal  blessedness 
in  heaven.  All  are  agreed,  too,  that  the  angels  were  created 
before  man,  but  there  is  no  agreement  as  regards  the  particular 
time  of  their  creation.  Thus  Ambrose  holds  that  the  crea 
tion  of  the  angels  preceded  that  of  the  visible  world :  "  Al 
though  they  at  some  time  began  to  be,  nevertheless  they  were 
already  in  existence  when  this  world  was  made."  n  Epi- 
phanius,  on  the  other  hand,  is  quite  certain  that  the  angels 
were  created  after  "  heaven  and  earth."  "  This,"  he  writes, 
"  the  word  of  God  evidently  declares,  that  the  angels  were 
neither  produced  after  the  stars,  nor  before  heaven  and  earth 
were  constituted."  12  Augustine  is  undecided,  holding  how 
ever  as  most  probable  that  their  creation  is  recorded  either 
in  the  first  or  the  third  verse  of  Genesis.13 

There  is  among  them  a  more  perfect  agreement  in  reference 
to  the  elevation  and  fall  of  the  angels.  Thus  St.  Basil  writes : 
"  For  neither  are  the  Powers  of  the  heavens  holy  by  their 
own  nature;  if  they  were,  they  would  not  differ  from  the 
Holy  Spirit:  but  in  proportion  as  they  rise  one  above  the 
other  in  perfection  do  they  receive  from  the  Spirit  the  proper 
measure  of  sanctification.  .  .  .  But  sanctification,  which  is 
distinct  from  their  substance,  perfects  them  through  the  com 
munication  of  the  Spirit."  14  And  again :  "  No  sanctity  is 
ever  acquired  except  through  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Therefore  their  angelic  nature  they  have  from  the  Creative 
Word,  the  Maker  of  all  things ;  but  their  sanctity  was  imparted 
to  them  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the  angels  were  not  created 
as  little  children,  perfecting  themselves  by  personal  endeavor 
and  thus  rendering  themselves  worthy  to  receive  the  Spirit; 
but  they  received  their  sanctity  together  with  their  substance 
at  the  moment  of  creation."  15  Augustine  speaks  in  almost 
identical  terms.  Arguing  that  every  good  and  meritorious 
action,  even  as  proceeding  from  the  free  will  of  creatures,  must 

11Hexaem.  i,  5,  19.  i*  De  Spin  Sanct.  16,  38. 

12  Adv.  Haer.  65,  5-  15  In  Ps.  Horn.  32,  4.    * 

13  De  Gen.  ad  Lit.  I,  7,  15. 


298    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

be  traced  back  to  the  grace  of  God  as  its  ultimate  cause,  he 
says:  "And  this  good  will  (of  the  angels)  who  had  given 
it,  if  not  He  who  imparted  it  to  them  in  their  creation  ?  That 
is,  He  gave  them  that  chaste  love  through  which  they  cling 
to  Him,  at  one  and  the  same  time  constituting  their  nature 
and  bestowing  His  grace."  16 

As  created  by  God,  the  angels  were  all  good ;  but  some  fell 
away  from  their  Maker  and  were  turned  into  devils.  The 
majority  of  these  writers  attribute  the  fall  of  the  angels  to 
pride.  Thus  Athanasius,  whilst  recommending  the  practice 
of  humility,  argues :  "  It  was  not  on  account  of  impurity, 
or  adultery,  or  theft,  that  Satan  was  cast  out  of  heaven;  but 
it  was  his  pride  that  hurled  him  thence  into  the  lower  abyss. 
For  thus  he  spoke :  '  I  will  ascend  and  place  my  throne  over 
against  that  of  God,  I  will  be  like  unto  the  Most  High ! '  And 
because  of  this  boast  was  he  cast  out,  and  the  eternal  fire 
became  his  portion."  17  Similarly  St.  Augustine :  "  Some/' 
he  writes,  "  contend  that  Satan  fell  because  he  envied  man 
on  account  of  his  having  been  made  to  the  likeness  of  God. 
But  however  that  be,  it  is  certain  that  envy  follows  pride, 
and  does  not  precede  it;  for  envy  is  not  the  cause  of  pride, 
but  pride  is  the  cause  of  envy."  18 

By  nature  the  angels  were  endowed  with  singular  powers 
and  knowledge,  being  the  "  splendores  secundi,"  fit  ministers 
of  the  Word ;  and  these  perfections  they  retained  in  their  fall, 
yet  they  do  not  know  the  secrets  of  the  human  heart  except 
by  inference  from  external  signs.  "  The  devil,"  writes 
Jerome,  "  does  not  know  what  man  thinks  in  his  heart,  unless 
he  learns  from  some  external  motion  in  what  object  each  one 
takes  his  delight,  and  then  he  makes  diverse  suggestions  in 
accordance  with  what  he  observes."  19  And  Cassian :  "  No 
one  doubts  that  the  impure  spirits  can  know  the  nature  of  our 
thoughts,  although  only  in  so  far  as  they  gather  this  knowl 
edge  from  external  signs,  that  is,  by  observing  our  disposition, 
our  words,  and  the  tendencies  of  our  desires.  But  for  the  rest, 

16  De  Civ.  Dei,  12,  9,  2.  i8  De  Gen.  ad  Lit.  11,  14,  18. 

"  De  Virgin.  5.  19  In  Ps.  16,  20. 


CHRISTIAN  ANTHROPOLOGY 


299 


those  things  which  are  entirely  hidden  in  the  soul  they  cannot 
touch."  20 

That  the  good  angels  were  appointed  by  God  to  be  our 
guardians,  whilst  the  evil  ones  endeavor  to  encompass  our 
destruction,  is  admitted  by  all.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  thus  sets 
forth  the  common  view :  "  There  is  a  teaching,  based  upon  the 
tradition  of  the  Fathers,  which  holds  that  after  our  nature 
had  fallen  into  sin,  God  did  not  leave  our  misery  without  pro 
tection,  but  that  an  angel,  one  of  those  incorporeal  spirits,  was 
appointed  by  Him  to  assist  each  one  of  us  during  life;  and 
that,  on  the  other  hand,  the  corrupter  of  our  nature  plies  his 
machinations  through  some  wicked  and  malevolent  demon  for 
the  purpose  of  destroying  the  life  of  man.  Placed  between 
these  two  spirits,  each  one  of  which  draws  him  on  to  opposite 
ends,  man  has  it  in  his  power  to  decide  which  of  them  shall 
prevail.  The  good  spirit  suggests  thoughts  of  virtue,  which 
lead  to  a  well  founded  hope ;  whilst  the  other  one  brings  before 
him  sordid  delights,  in  which  there  is  no  hope  of  good,  drag 
ging  him  down  to  the  desire  of  temporal  things  and  to  the 
sensual  slavery  of  the  foolish."  21 

These  are  the  principal  points  touched  upon  by  the  fourth 
and  fifth  century  writers  in  their  teaching  concerning  the  an 
gels.  They  comprise  practically  all  we  know  of  the  matter 
to-day.  Excepting  the  practice  of  special  devotions  to  the 
angels  on  the  part  of  the  faithful,  which  in  some  cases  have 
been  approved  by  the  Church,  there  has  been  but  little  devel 
opment  along  these  lines  of  Christian  thought. 

B  —  ANTHROPOLOGY 
Justin  Martyr  defined  man  as  a  reasonable  being  composed 

20  Coll.  7,  15.  arise  in  our  hearts,  and  justice  be- 

21  De  Vita  Moysis,  P.  G.  44,  337.  gins  to  spring  up  in  our  souls,  there 
It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  over  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  the  angel 
a  hundred  years  before  the  time  of  of   the    Lord    is    speaking.     But   if, 
Gregory,  Origen  had  set_  forth  this  on  the  contrary,  evil  reigns  in  our 
doctrine  in  almost  identical  terms.  hearts,    the   angel   of   the    devil    is 
"  With  every  one  of  us,"  he  says,  speaking  to  us.    And  as  there  are 
"there  are  present  two  angels,  the  thus    two    angels    with    individual 
one  an  angel  of  justice,  the  other  a  men,  thus,  I  am  of  opinion,  there 
spirit  of  iniquity.     If  good  thoughts  are  also  two  angels  in  the  various 


300 


FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 


of  soul  and  body.22  This  definition  was  in  one  way  or  another 
repeated  by  most  subsequent  writers.  Even  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  who  is  commonly  accused  of  having  held  that 
man  is  made  up  of  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  says  quite  definitely : 
"  Man  is  composed  of  a  rational  and  an  irrational  part,  of  soul 
and  body." 23  With  this  view  the  fourth-century  Fathers, 
excepting  Didymus  the  Blind  in  the  East  and  Victorinus  Afer 
in  the  West,  both  of  whom  seem  to  have  been  trichotomists, 
were  in  perfect  accord.  They  all  held  that  the  two  constitutive 
elements  in  man  are  his  spiritual  soul  and  his  material  body, 
from  the  intimate  union  of  which  results  the  animal  rationale 
called  man. 

Speaking  of  man's  origin,  they  usually  restate  what  is  con 
tained  in  Holy  Scripture,  accepting  without  demur  that  "  the 
Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  slime  of  the  earth,  and  breathed 
into  his  face  the  breath  of  life."  This  last  statement,  how 
ever,  was  not  accepted  by  all  in  the  same  sense.  Didymus 
revived  the  view  of  Origen,  that  souls  were  created  before 
their  union  with  the  body,  and  that  consequently  this  breathing 
of  the  soul  into  man's  face  signifies  simply  a  subsequent  im 
prisonment  of  the  soul,  as  a  punishment  for  sins  committed 
in  a  previous  state  of  existence.24  This  same  view  was  also 
entertained  by  Victorinus.25  The  other  writers  of  this  period, 
on  the  contrary,  interpreted  the  same  statement  as  a  creative 
act  of  God ;  although  Epiphanius,  who  held  indeed  that  Adam's 
soul  was  created,  seems  to  have  been  at  a  loss  how  to  under 
stand  the  text  in  question.26 

Regarding  the  origin  of  the  first  man's  soul,  then,  all  were 
at  one:  it  was  created  by  God.  But  what  of  the  souls  of 
Adam's  posterity?  Are  they  also  created?  Or  are  they  in 
some  way  derived  from  the  children's  parents  in  the  act  of 
generation,  ex  traduce  seminis?  Among  Eastern  writers 
Gregory  of  Nyssa  seems  to  have  been  inclined  to  hold  this 

different  countries,  endeavoring  to  23  Strom.  4,  3. 

make    them    either    good    or   bad"  2*  Enarr.  in  I  Petri,  i,  i. 

(In  Luc.  Horn.  12).  25  In  Epist.  ad  Ephes.  i,  4. 

22  De  Resurr.  8.  26  Ancor.  55. 


CHRISTIAN  ANTHROPOLOGY  301 

latter  view,27  whilst  the  others  stood  for  the  creation  of  in 
dividual  souls.  Of  the  West  St.  Jerome  affirms  that  the 
greater  number  follow  Tertullian  and  Apollinaris,  asserting 
that  "  the  same  way  as  the  body  is  born  of  the  body,  the  soul 
is  born  of  the  soul,  and  subsists  under  the  same  conditions  as 
brute  animals."  28  This,  however,  is  undoubtedly  an  exag 
geration,  especially  in  the  wholly  material  sense  in  which 
Tertullian  understood  Traducianism.  As  St.  Augustine 
rightly  points  out,  such  a  derivation  would  make  the  soul 
corporeal,  and  this  no  well  instructed  Christian  could  admit.29 
At  any  rate,  Jerome  himself,  Ambrose,  Hilary,  Zeno,  Victor- 
inus,  and  others  who  touched  this  question,  agreed  with  their 
Eastern  contemporaries  in  defending  Creationism.  Augustine 
indeed  was  undecided,  but  only  for  practical  reasons,  not  see 
ing  his  way  how  to  explain  the  transmission  of  original  sin 
if  individual  souls  are  created  by  God.  Hence  whilst  rejecting 
the  gross  Traducianism  of  Tertullian,  he  viewed  the  derivation 
of  souls  ex  traduce  seminis  in  a  more  spiritual  sense,  and  re 
tained  it  as  a  working  hypothesis  till  the  end  of  his  life.  In 
this  he  was  followed  by  other  Latin  writers  up  to  the  Middle 
Ages. 

With  the  exception  of  the  followers  of  Tertullian,  both 
Eastern  and  Western  writers  admitted  the  spirituality  of  the 
soul.  They1  also  defended  the  soul's  natural  immortality, 
which  was  not  affected  by  Adam's  fall  into  sin.  This,  to 
gether  with  his  intellect  and  free  will,  constitutes  man's  natural 
likeness  to  God. 

A  somewhat  more  difficult  question  is  that  of  man's  primi 
tive  condition.  Was  Adam  before  his  fall  endowed  only  .with 
natural  perfections,  or  had  he  over  and  above  received  others 
that  placed  him  in  a  preternatural  state?  And  if  the  latter, 
were  any  of  these  gifts  of  a  strictly  supernatural  order?  In 
what  precise  light  did  the  fourth  and  fifth-century  writers  view 
Adam's  condition  in  paradise? 

There  is  no  particular  difficulty  about  the  first  question,  if 
the  term  preternatural  be  taken  in  a  somewhat  wider  sense, 

27  De  Horn.  Opif.  29.  29  Ep.  190  (al.  157)   ad  Optat.  2, 

28  Ep.  82.  14. 


302    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

so  as  to  signify  simply  a  condition  of  existence  which  was  lost 
through  the  sin  of  Adam.  For  all  these  writers  are  at  one  in 
holding  that  we  are  now  living  in  a  world  wholly  unlike  that 
which  came  from  the  creative  hand  of  God.  Blindness  of  the 
intellect,  perversion  of  the  will,  anguish  of  soul,  pains  of  body, 
sickness  and  want,  are  the  bitter  fruit  of  our  first  parents'  sin. 
There  was  nothing  of  all  this  in  that  garden  of  pleasure  which 
God  in  His  goodness  had  prepared  for  the  progenitors  of  our 
race.  They  were  made  right,  the  material  world  ministered 
to  their  pleasure,  and  their  lives  were  bright  with  the  love  and 
familiar  intercourse  of  God.  About  this  there  is  no  dissentient 
voice. 

Furthermore,  they  are  also  agreed  that  man  was  originally 
endowed  with  immortality  of  body,  so  that  if  he  had  not  sinned, 
he  would  never  have  tasted  death.  And  yet,  on  the  other 
hand,  they  admit  that  death  is  natural  to  man,  although  in  the 
present  order  it  is  the  consequence  of  sin.  Man  is  a  compound 
being,  made  up  of  body  and  soul,  whose  union  may  be  dis 
solved  by  a  proportionate  finite  cause.  Nay,  his  very  organism 
requires  that  he  gradually  develop  to  his  full  strength,  enjoy 
for  a  little  while  the  perfection  of  his  manhood,  and  then  by 
degrees  grow  feeble  with  age,  until  at  last  his  body  returns 
to  the  dust.  Hence,  although  these  writers  did  not  theorize 
much  about  the  matter,  they  in  effect  regarded  man's  primi 
tive  immortality  as  a  preternatural  gift,  as  something  not  due 
to  his  nature.  And  in  the  same  light  also  did  they  view  his 
impassibility,  and  his  immunity  from  concupiscence.  In  this, 
again,  they  are  practically  unanimous. 

The  real  difficulty  begins  when  the  term  preternatural  is 
taken  in  a  stricter  sense,  as  synonymous  with  supernatural. 
Immortality  of  body,  impassibility,  immunity  from  concupi 
scence,  although  not  due  to  human  nature  as  such,  are  never 
theless  entirely  within  the  range  of  its  unelevated  capacities. 
Their  bestowal  does  not  necessarily  imply  an  elevation  of  man 
to  an  essentially  higher  state.  But  it  is  otherwise  with  gifts 
that  are  in  se  or  entitatively  supernatural,  as  is  that  of  sancti 
fying  grace.  Thereby  man  in  his  spiritual  aspect  is  lifted  to 
a  divine  plane  of  being,  becoming  a  partaker  of  the  divine 


CHRISTIAN  ANTHROPOLOGY  303 

nature.  And  here  the  question  is,  whether  the  writers  now 
under  consideration  held  that  such  a  gift  had  been  bestowed 
upon  our  first  parents.  If  so,  then  they  must  have  considered 
man's  primitive  state  to  have  been  strictly  supernatural. 

Harnack,  in  his  History  of  Dogmas,  is  at  great  pains 
to  show  that  the  Greeks  made  no  room  for  the  supernatural, 
whenever  they  were  occupied  with  cosmological  speculations. 
With  them  the  supernatural,  in  this  connection,  he  says,  was 
the  same  as  the  spiritual.  They  had  no  notion  of  a  gift  that 
reached  beyond  the  natural  capacity  of  our  first  parents.  He 
grants,  however,  that  aside  from  such  cosmological  specula 
tions  they  presented  the  matter  in  a  different  light.  Thus  they 
proved  themselves  perfectly  capable  of  grasping  and  describing 
the  specific  significance  of  the  grace  brought  us  by  Christ;  and 
some  of  them,  he  admits,  held  that  a  similar  grace  had  been 
bestowed  upon  the  ancestors  of  our  race.30 

Although  these  statements  contain  some  half-truths  which 
necessarily  lead  to  false  inferences,  nevertheless  they  also  give 
us  the  key  to  the  problem  now  under  consideration.  It  is  this. 
When  the  Fathers,  and  this  is  true  of  the  Latins  as  well  as 
of  the  Greeks,  were  directly  engaged  in  discussing  man's 
primitive  condition,  they  as  a  general  rule  did  not  emphasize 
the  strictly  supernatural  aspect  of  his  state.  But  when  they 
spoke  of  the  grace  of  redemption,  they  almost  invariably  repre 
sented  it  as  a  restoration  of  man  to  the  state  from  which  Adam 
had  fallen  by  sin.  This  difference  of  treatment  resulted  more 
or  less  from  the  very  nature  of  things.  For  theological  science 
was  still  too  undeveloped  to  favor  speculative  discussion  on  the 
natural  and  supernatural;  whereas  the  grace  of  redemption 
through  Christ,  and  its  being  a  restoration  of  man  to  his  prim 
itive  condition,  were  truths  which  they  found  clearly  stated  in 
Holy  Scripture.  The  grace  of  redemption,  moreover,  even  as 
imparted  to  individual  souls,  they  looked  upon  as  a  deification 
of  human  nature,  as  something  really  and  strictly  supernatural. 
And  yet  this  same  grace,  they  held,  had  also  been  conferred  on 
our  first  parents  before  the  fall ;  for  the  redemption  was  in  a 

30  Dogmengeschichte,  II,  146-156. 


304    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

true  sense  a  restoration.  Hence  whatever  may  have  been  the 
tenor  of  these  writers'  "  cosmological  speculations,"  they  un 
doubtedly  held  that  man  was  in  the  beginning  raised  to  the 
supernatural  state. 

Nor  is  it  altogether  true  that  "  the  Greeks  in  their  cosmo 
logical  speculations  made  no  room  for  the  supernatural."  For 
as  early  as  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  St.  Irenaeus 
clearly  taught  that  man,  whilst  still  in  paradise,  was  through 
the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  a  supernatural  image  and 
likeness  of  God.  That  deprived  of  grace  by  sin,  he  retained 
indeed  the  natural  image ;  but  the  supernatural  likeness,  which 
God  had  bestowed  upon  him  and  which  he  was  to  preserve 
by  the  good  use  of  his  free  will,  was  lost  and  could  be  restored 
only  through  the  grace  of  Christ.31  And  hence  he  represents 
Adam  after  the  fall  thus  soliloquizing  at  seeing  himself  clad 
in  the  skins  of  beasts :  "  The  stole  of  sanctity,  which  I  had 
received  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  I  have  lost  through  disobedi 
ence,  and  now  I  know  that  I  deserve  to  be  covered  with  this 
garment,  which  indeed  gives  me  no  delight,  but  bites  and 
stings  the  body."  32 

This  interpretation  of  Adam's  "  likeness "  to  God  was 
adopted  by  most  subsequent  writers,  although  they  usually 
make  reference  to  it  in  connection  with  the  grace  of  redemp 
tion.  Thus  Gregory  of  Nyssa :  "  Let  us  return  to  that 
divine  grace  in  which  God  created  man  at  the  beginning,  when 
He  said :  Let  us  make  man  to  our  image  and  likeness."  33 
The  same  is  implied  by  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  when  he  closes 
his  oration  on  Adam's  glorious  condition  in  paradise,  his  fall, 
and  redemption  through  the  Incarnate  Logos,  with  the  state 
ment  :  "  The  culmination  of  it  all  is  this :  my  perfection  and 
restoration,  and  my  return  to  the  first  Adam."  34  Similarly 
Basil  the  Great :  "  Through  the  Holy  Spirit  is  bestowed  the 
reinstatement  in  paradise,  the  ascent  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  the  return  to  the  adoption  of  children."  35  And  hence 
the  general  principle  laid  down  by  the  same  author,  and  ad- 

31  Adv.  Haer.  5,  6;  2,  33,  4.  3*  Orat.  38,  16. 

32  Ibid.  3,  23,  5.  85  De  Spir.  Sanct.  15. 

33  De  Opif.  Horn.  30. 


CHRISTIAN  ANTHROPOLOGY  305 

hered  to  by  all  other  writers  when  speaking  of  this  matter: 
"The  (new)  dispensation  of  God  and  our  Saviour  in  regard 
to  man  is  a  calling  back  from  the  fall,  a  return  to  God's  friend 
ship  from  the  estrangement  brought  about  by  disobedience."  36 

Now  the  grace  of  Christ,  whereby  we  are  restored  to  our 
primitive  condition,  is  regarded  by  all  these  writers  as  strictly 
supernatural;  not  only  in  reference  to  our  sinful  nature,  but 
as  referred  to  human  nature  in  itself.  It  is  a  deification  of 
the  creature,  the  adoption  of  the  servant  as  God's  own  child. 
"  In  this  consists  the  goodness  of  God,"  says  St.  Athanasius, 
"  that  He  deigns  to  be  the  Father  of  those  of  whom  He  is  the 
Creator.  And  this  comes  to  pass,  when,  as  the  Apostle  says, 
men  created  by  Him  receive  into  their  hearts  the  Spirit  of  His 
Son,  who  cries  out,  Abba,  Father!  Such  are  all  those  who 
received  the  Word,  and  from  Him  have  power  to  become  the 
children  of  God.  Because  as  they  are  creatures  by  nature, 
they  can  become  sons  of  God  only  by  receiving  into  them 
selves  the  Spirit  of  the  natural  and  true  Son  of  God.  And  for 
this  purpose  the  Word  has  become  flesh,  to  fit  men  for  the 
reception  of  divinity."  37 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem  uses  almost  the  same  terms.  "  Al 
though,"  he  says,  "  it  has  been  granted  us  to  say,  especially  in 
our  prayers, '  Our  Father  who  art  in  heaven/  yet  this  is  a  favor 
that  comes  to  us  from  the  goodness  of  God.  For  not  as 
though  we  were  naturally  born  of  the  Father  who  is  in  heaven, 
do  we  call  Him  Father ;  but  as  translated  by  the  grace  of  the 
Father  from  servitude  to  adoption,  through  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  is  it  conceded  to  us  by  His  ineffable  bounty  so  to 
address  Him."  38  His  namesake  of  Alexandria  is  even  more 
explicit,  when  he  points  out  that  this  "  deification  is  beyond 
the  natural  capacity  of  all  created  nature.  This  incompre 
hensible  new  creation  can  be  attributed  only  to  God,  who  per 
mits  the  souls  of  the  saints  to  share  His  own  divinity  through 
the  Holy  Spirit,  through  whom  we  become  conformable  to  His 
natural  Son."  39 

86  Ibid.  15,  35.  89  Contr.  Eunom.  3,  7 ;  cfr.  Athan. 

87  Contr.  Arian.  2,  59.  Ad  Scrap. ;  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  34. 
38Catech.  7,  7. 


306    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

How  this  deification  of  nature,  this  human  participation  of 
the  divinity,  is  to  be  understood,  appears  from  the  exposition 
of  John  Damascene,  who  interpreted  the  writings  of  the  earlier 
Fathers.  "  Man,"  he  says,  "  is  deified  through  grace,  in  as 
much  as  he  shares  in  the  divine  enlightenment,  and  not  because 
his  being  is  changed  into  the  nature  of  God." 40  Human 
nature  remains  human  nature,  but  it  is  elevated  to  a  divine 
plane ;  it  is,  so  to  speak,  admitted  into  God's  own  family  circle. 

With  this  teaching  of  the  Eastern  Fathers,  their  Western 
contemporaries  are  in  perfect  accord.  They  all  subscribed  to 
the  saying  of  Tertullian  that  we  are  gods,  not  by  our  own 
nature,  but  through  God's  grace.  "  Those,"  says  Ambrose, 
"  in  whom  God  sees  His  Son,  His  own  Image,  He  admits 
through  the  Son  to  the  grace  of  sonship:  so  that  as  through 
the  image  we  are  to  the  image,  so  through  the  generation  of 
the  Son  are  we  called  to  the  grace  of  adoption."  41 

The  whole  matter  is  thus  clearly  explained  by  Augustine,  of 
whose  teaching  on  divine  grace  and  the  state  of  original  justice 
something  more  will  be  said  in  another  chapter.  Speaking  of 
the  grace  of  the  New  Law,  he  says:  "This  birth  (through 
grace)  is  spiritual,  and  therefore  not  of  blood,  not  of  the  will 
of  man,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  but  of  God.  And  this 
birth  is  called  adoption.  For  we  were  something  before  we 
became  the  sons  of  God,  and  we  received  grace  that  we  might 
become  what  we  were  not ;  even  as  he  who  is  adopted,  before 
adoption  was  not  yet  the  son  of  him  by  whom  he  is  adopted, 
nevertheless  he  was  already  such  a  one  as  might  be  adopted. 
And  from  this  generation  through  grace  must  that  Son  be  set 
apart,  who,  when  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  came  to  be  made 
the  Son  of  man  and  to  bestow  upon  us,  who  were  the  sons  of 
men,  the  grace  to  become  the  sons  of  God.  He  was  indeed 
made  what  He  was  not,  but  nevertheless  He  was  something 
else ;  and  this  very  something  was  the  Word  of  God,  through 
which  all  things  were  made,  and  the  true  light,  which  en- 
lighteneth  every  man  that  cometh  into  this  world,  and  God  with 
God.  We  also  through  His  grace  were  made  what  we  were 

40  De  Fide  Orth.  2,  12.  41  De  Fide,  5,  3. 


CHRISTIAN  ANTHROPOLOGY  307 

not,  that  is,  sons  of  God;  but  still  we  were  something,  and 
this  same  something  much  inferior,  that  is,  sons  of  men.  He 
therefore  descended  that  we  might  ascend,  and  remaining  in 
His  own  nature  was  made  partaker  of  our  nature,  so  that  we, 
remaining  in  our  nature,  might  be  made  partakers  of  His 
nature."  42 

With  all  this,  however,  it  is  very  true  that  the  Fathers  did 
not  enter  into  any  speculative  consideration  of  the  nature  of 
divine  grace.  They  took  a  practical  view  of  the  matter,  and 
built  upon  the  data  supplied  by  Holy  Scripture.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  not  less  true  that  they  had  a  very  definite 
concept  of  the  elevation  of  human  nature  through  the  grace 
of  Christ,  and  they  either  explicitly  affirmed  or  evidently  im 
plied  a  similar  elevation  when  speaking  of  our  first  parents 
before  the  fall.  Hence  although  there  is  truth  in  Tixeront's 
remark  concerning  the  Greek  Fathers,  that  "  from  all  their 
affirmations  (in  reference  to  man's  primitive  condition)  one 
can  hardly  draw  a  single  precise  and  well  connected  theory," 
still  it  does  not  eliminate  the  further  truth  that  in  their  view 
of  the  matter  our  first  parents  were  elevated  above  their  natural 
condition,  and  that  along  with  this  elevation,  or  in  consequence 
of  it,  they  were  made  the  recipients  of  favors  and  gifts  which 
were  all  lost  through  sin. 

42  Epist.  140  (al.  412)  ;  cfr.  Retract.  2,  32. 


CHAPTER  XX 

THE  WORD  INCARNATE:    THE  REDEMPTION  OF  THE 

WORLD 

The  fourth  century  Fathers,  especially  those  of  the  East, 
set  forth  their  views  on  the  Word  Incarnate  chiefly  in  two 
different  connections :  First,  whilst  arguing  against  the  Apol- 
linarian  heresy,  according  to  which  the  humanity  of  Christ  was 
imperfect,  in  the  sense  that  the  Word  had  taken  the  place  of 
the  rational  soul;  secondly,  when  speaking  of  the  redemption 
of  the  world,  from  which  they  drew  a  special  argument  for  the 
divinity  of  Christ.  The  tenets  of  Apollinaris  have  already 
been  explained  in  a  previous  chapter,  hence  in  this  place  we 
need  do  no  more  than  briefly  set  down  the  teaching  of  orthodox 
writers  on  the  person  of  the  Saviour;  and  to  this  we  may 
appropriately  add  their  views  on  the  work  of  redemption,  as 
in  their  minds  the  two  were  intimately  connected. 

A  —  THE  WORD  INCARNATE 

Practically  the  same  men  who  defended  the  Church's  doc 
trine  on  the  Trinity  against  the  various  forms  of  Arianism, 
also  defended  her  teaching  on  the  God-Man  against  Apolli- 
narianism.  Their  line  of  argument  may,  for  brevity's  sake,  be 
reduced  to  the  following  points. 

i°.  "He  who  before  the  ages  existed  as  God  the  Word, 
became  man  at  Nazareth.  He  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary 
and  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  Bethlehem  of  Juda,  of  the  seed  of 
David,  of  Abraham,  and  of  Adam,  as  it  is  written;  and  He 
took  from  the  Virgin  whatever  God  in  the  beginning  fashioned 
and  contributed  to  the  constitution  of  man,  sin  alone  ex- 
cepted."  1  This  was  effected  not  by  a  change  of  the  divinity, 

1Athan.  Contr.  Apoll.  2,  5. 

308 


THE  WORD  INCARNATE 


309 


but  by  a  renovation  of  the  humanity;  "  so  that  man  might  be 
truly  God,  and  God  might  be  truly  man,  and  that  He  should  be 
true  man  and  true  God."  2  The  union  between  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  and  the  divinity  of  the  Word  had  its  begin 
ning  at  the  moment  of  conception  in  the  Virgin's  womb,  so 
that  in  the  union  itself  the  human  nature  began  to  exist.3 

2°.  This  human  nature  of  the  Saviour  was  in  every  sense 
consubstantial  with  ours  :  because  otherwise  "  we  who  had  died 
in  Adam  would  not  have  been  made  alive  in  Christ ;  that  which 
was  broken  would  not  have  been  restored;  that  which  by  the 
serpent's  lie  had  been  estranged  would  not  have  been  reunited 
to  God."  4  For  "  that  alone  is  healed  which  has  been  assumed 
by  the  Word."  5  This  lay  in  God's  plan  of  redemption;  and 
hence  "  Jesus  did  not  give  one  thing  for  another,  but  a  body 
for  a  body,  a  soul  for  a  soul,  and  a  complete  being  for  a  whole 
man."  6  This  "  whole  man,"  therefore,  was  assumed  by  the 
Word,  although  the  writers  in  question  usually  speak  of  the 
soul  as  the  immediate  bond  of  union.7 

3°.  As  the  Saviour's  human  nature  is  thus  consubstantial 
with  ours,  it  follows  that  as  man  He  is  subject  to  all  our  needs 
and  weaknesses  and  infirmities,  in  so  far  as  they  naturally 
affect  the  body  and  the  affective  part  of  the  soul.  In  this  re 
spect  "  He  kept  all  the  consequences  of  the  Incarnation."  8 
So  far  all  these  writers  are  agreed;  but  on  the  subject  of 
Christ's  mental  perfections  their  agreement  is  not  so  complete. 
Athanasius  and  Nyssa  admit  a  gradual  increase  of  human 
knowledge  in  the  Saviour,  whilst  Basil,  Amphilochius,  Didy- 
mus,  Epiphanius,  and  Chrysostom  hold  that  He  was  perfect 
in  wisdom  from  the  very  beginning  of  His  human  life.9 
These  latter  explain  the  apparently  contrary  Scripture  texts 
by  postulating  an  economic  ignorance  and  a  progressive  mani- 

2  Ibid.  8  Didym.  De  Trin.  3,  21. 

3  Ibid,   i,  4.  »Athan.  Orat.  3  contra  Arian.  54; 

4  Basil,  Epist.  266,  2.  cfr.  ibid.  43,  45,  48 ;  Nyssa,  Antir- 
6  Greg.  Naz.  Epist.  101,  P.  G.  37,      rhet.  28;   cfr.   ibid.   24.     Basil,   Ep. 

181.  236,  i,  2;  Amphil.  Fragm.  6;  Didym. 

6  Id.  Contr.  Apoll.  i,  17.  De  Trinit.  3,  22 ;  Epiphan.  Ancorat. 

7  Id.     Epist.     101 ;     Greg.  Nyss.      32,     38,    78 ;     Chrysost    In    Matt. 
Antirrhet.  41.  Horn.  77,  i,  2. 


3io    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

festation  of  wisdom  and  knowledge.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus 
also  appears  to  admit  that  Christ  as  man  was  ignorant  of  some 
things;  for  arguing  against  the  Arians,  who  attributed  ignor 
ance  of  the  day  of  judgment  to  the  Word  Itself,  he  asks: 
"  Is  it  not  clear  to  all  that  He  knew  it  as  God,  and  did  not 
know  it  as  man  ?  "  10  However,  later  writers,  and  among 
them  John  Damascene,  interpret  Gregory's  words  as  referring 
to  humanity  as  considered  in  itself,  and  not  as  it  existed  in 
Christ.11 

4°.  All  are  at  one  in  maintaining  the  perfect  holiness  and 
absolute  impeccability  of  Jesus.  "  He  has  been  specially 
sanctified  and  anointed  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  sanctification 
the  Saviour  as  God  imparted  to  Himself  as  man :  He  imparted 
it  to  Himself  that  we  too  might  be  sanctified."  12  "  He  is 
called  Christ  because  of  the  divinity;  for  this  is  the  unction 
of  the  humanity,  sanctifying  it  not  by  a  mere  passing  operation, 
as  is  the  case  in  others  who  are  anointed,  but  in  such  wise 
that  He  who  anoints  (the  Word)  is  called  man,  and  that  which 
is  anointed  (Christ  as  man)  becomes  God."  13  It  was  be 
cause  of  this  substantial  unction,  consisting  in  the  union  of  the 
human  and  the  divine,  that  Christ  was  absolutely  impeccable. 
"  The  incarnation  of  the  Word,  effected  according  to  the  na 
ture  of  God,  admitted  in  no  sense  whatever  any  of  those  things 
which  even  now  cling  to  us  from  our  ancient  heritage,  and  for 
this  reason  are  we  taught  to  put  off  the  old  man  and  to  put  on 
the  new.  And  in  this  there  is  a  miracle,  both  that  the  Lord 
was  made  man  and  is  without  sin."  14  Hence  Cyril  of  Alex 
andria,  who  wrote  somewhat  later,  does  not  hesitate  to  say 
that  "  they  are  stupid  and  altogether  demented  who  affirm  that 
Christ  could  have  sinned."  15 

5°.  The  union  of  the  Godhead  with  the  humanity  is  so  inti 
mate  that  the  Saviour's  human  nature,  in  so  far  as  it  is  united 
to  the  Godhead,  is  an  object  of  adoration:  "  For  if  the  flesh 
also  is  in  itself  a  part  of  the  created  world,  yet  it  has  become 

10  Orat.  30,  15.  13  Naz.  Orat.  30,  21. 

11  De  Fide  Orthod.  3,  21.  14Athan.  Cont.  Apollinar.  I,  17. 

12  Athan.  Ad  Adelph.  4.  15  Contra  Antropomorph.  23. 


THE  WORD  INCARNATE 

God's  body."  16  Still  this  intimate  union  does  not  change  the 
two  natures :  "  You  must  distinguish  the  natures,  that  of  God 
and  that  of  man :  nor  has  Jesus  advanced  from  the  nature  of 
man  to  that  of  God."  17  "  He  assumed  the  humanity  in  union 
with  the  divinity."  18  "  Those  words  of  the  Saviour:  I  came 
down  from  heaven  not  to  do  my  will,  but  the  will  of  Him  that 
sent  me,  must  be  understood  in  this  sense,  that  Christ  did  not 
follow  the  prompting  of  His  human  will,  but  the  will  of  the 
Godhead;  for  the  (divine)  will  of  the  beloved  Son  was  none 
other  than  that  of  God."  19  Hence  there  are  in  Christ  two 
wills,  the  divine  and  the  human,  and  thus  both  the  Mono- 
physites  and  the  Monothelites  are  refuted  beforehand. 

7°.  There  is  in  Jesus  only  one  person:  He  is  at  the  same 
time  both  God  and  man.  "  It  is  to  be  held  that  Christ  is 
perfect  God  and  perfect  man;  not  that  the  divine  perfection 
was  changed  into  the  human,  which  it  would  be  impious  to 
say;  nor  that  the  two  perfections  remained  separate  the  one 
from  the  other,  which  it  would  be  equally  impious  to  affirm; 
nor  that  the  result  was  effected  through  an  increase  of  power 
and  an  addition  of  justice,  God  forbid!  But  one  and  the 
same  is  both  perfect  God  and  perfect  man."  20  On  this  all 
are  agreed,  and  they  are  quite  familiar  with  the  communicatio 
idiomatum,  predicating  of  the  same  Christ  both  human  and 
divine  attributes ;  but  the  particulars  are  more  clearly  set  forth 
by  Gregory  of  Nazianzus.  Thus  in  order  to  prove  that  Mary 
is  truly  Theotokos,  the  Mother  of  God,  he  points  to  the  fact 
that  it  was  the  Son  of  God  who  took  flesh  in  her  womb  and 
was  born  of  her,  and  then  continues :  "  In  one  word,  the 
Saviour  is  indeed  made  up  of  different  elements,  for  the  in 
visible  and  the  visible  are  not  the  same,  nor  the  eternal  and 
the  temporal ;  but  for  all  this  He  is  not  other  and  other,  not  two 
persons,  God  forbid !  For  the  two  elements  have  become  one 
in  union,  God  taking  to  Himself  human  nature,  and  human 
nature  being  united  to  the  divinity,  or  however  one  should 
express  it.  I  say  different  elements,  for  in  the  Incarnation  we 

16  Athan.  Ad  Adelph.  3.  i»  Amphiloch.  De  Trin.  3,  12. 

17  Amphiloch.  fragm.  9.  20  Athan.  De  Incarn.  i,  16. 

18  Epiphan.    Ancor,  75. 


312    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

have  the  reverse  of  what  we  find  in  the  Trinity ;  because  there 
we  acknowledge  another  and  another,  so  as  not  to  confound 
the  persons,  but  not  different  elements,  since  the  three  are  one 
and  the  same  Godhead."  21  This  teaching  refutes  in  advance 
the  Nestorian  heresy,  which  was  to  make  its  appearance  half  a 
century  later. 

8°.  Hence,  according  to  the  common  teaching  of  these 
theologians,  the  union  between  the  human  and  the  divine  ele 
ments  in  Christ  is  in  some  way  a  personal  union,  since  it  results 
in  oneness  of  person ;  but  in  what  that  personal  union  precisely 
consists,  how  it  is  still  further  to  be  explained,  they  do  not 
undertake  to  say.  Here  and  there  we  find  general  statements 
that  seem  to  point  the  way  to  an  ultimate  explanation,  as  far 
as  such  an  explanation  is  possible;  but  they  hardly  go  to  the 
root  of  the  matter.  Thus  Athanasius  says  that  "  the  Word 
has  not  changed  the  humanity,  but  has  made  the  humanity  and 
what  belonged  to  it  His  own.  The  humanity  was  not  the 
Word,  but  it  was  the  humanity  of  the  Word."  22  The  same 
view  is  expressed  by  Gregory  of  Nyssa  when  he  writes :  "  By 
reason  of  the  natural  contact  and  union  the  wounds  and  the 
honors  are  common  to  each  element,  the  Lord  receiving  the 
stripes  of  the  servant,  and  the  servant  being  glorified  by  the 
honors  of  the  Lord."  23  These  and  similar  statements,  which 
occur  frequently  in  the  works  of  all  these  writers,  indicate  with 
sufficient  clearness  that  the  union  was  regarded  as  being  in  the 
physical  order.  Of  a  merely  moral  union  they  knew  nothing. 
No  definite  theory  regarding  the  nature  of  this  physical  union 
was  advanced,  but  the  very  fact  that  it  was  explained  as  re 
sulting  into  unity  of  person  without  destroying  the  duality  of 
natures  shows  that  it  was  considered  to  be  hypostatic. 

This,  then,  represents  the  Christological  teaching  of  the 
East,  as  determined  more  or  less  by  the  aberrations  of  Apol- 
linaris  and  his  followers;  but  with  it  the  Christology  of  the 
West  during  the  same  period  of  time  was  in  full  accord,  al 
though  in  Western  lands  the  heresy  of  Apollinaris  was  hardly 
known.  In  fact,  Latin  Christology  had  already  been  formu- 

21  Ep.  101.  23Cont.  Eunom.  5. 

32  Ad  Epictet.  6. 


THE  WORD  INCARNATE  313 

lated  by  Tertullian  at  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  when 
he  wrote  the  terse  sentence :  "  Videmus  duplicen  statum,  non 
confusum,  sed  conjunctum  in  una  persona,  Deum  et  hominem 
Jesum."  "  We  see  a  twofold  state,  not  confused,  but  con 
joined  in  one  person,  God  and  the  man  Jesus."  Those  who 
came  after  him  did  little  more  than  expand  this  epigrammatic 
statement  as  circumstances  required.  A  few  examples  will 
make  this  clear. 

Thus  Hilary  writes :  "  The  change  in  outward  appearance 
and  the  assumption  of  human  nature  did  not  destroy  the 
divinity,  because  it  is  one  and  the  same  Christ  who  assumed 
human  nature  and  who  appears  in  mortal  garb."  24  Similarly 
Phcebadius :  "  What  the  Virgin  conceived  that  she  brought 
forth,  God  and  man  united  into  one.  Each  of  the  two  sub 
stances,  the  divine  and  the  human,  retained  its  own  properties 
and  its  own  operations."  25  "  Christ  is  not  divided,"  says  St. 
Ambrose,  "  but  He  is  one ;  that  is,  one  in  two  natures,  the 
divine  and  the  human:  for  He  is  not  one  in  so  far  as  He  is 
of  the  Father,  and  another  one  in  so  far  as  He  is  of  the  Virgin ; 
but  one  and  the  same  in  one  way  of  the  Father  and  in  another 
way  of  the  Virgin." 26  Of  the  communicatio  idiomatum 
Zeno  of  Verona  gives  this  striking  example :  "  Mary  con 
ceived  the  Creator  of  the  world;  she  brought  forth  a  child 
that  was  before  all  ages.  God  wails  as  an  infant,  and  He 
who  was  to  pay  the  debt  of  the  whole  world  allows  Himself 
to  be  wrapt  in  swaddling-clothes.  He  whose  eternity  is  not 
susceptible  of  increase  in  duration,  passes  through  all  the  suc 
cessive  stages  of  advancing  age."  2T 

These  men  are  evidently  thoroughly  persuaded  that  there 
is  a  most  intimate  union  between  the  human  and  the  divine 
elements  in  Christ,  but  they  evince  no  inclination  to  speculate 
about  its  precise  nature.  They  know  that  there  are  two  na 
tures  in  the  Saviour  and  only  one  person,  and  also  that  these 
two  natures  are  so  closely  united  as  to  form  but  one  being, 
the  God-Man  Christ,  although  each  nature,  notwithstanding 
the  union,  retains  its  own  properties  and  its  own  mode  of 

24  De  Trin.  9,  14.  26  De  Incarn.  35. 

26  Cont.  Arian.  19,  4.  27  Tract.  2,  8,  2 ;  7,  4. 


FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

action.  "  Utramque  substantiam  suam,"  says  Phcebadius, 
"  affectus  proprietate  distinxit/'  28  "  Suscepit  ergo  Christus 
voluntatem  meam,"  St.  Ambrose  infers  from  Christ's  prayer 
in  the  garden,  "  suscepit  tristitiam  meam.  Mea  est  voluntas 
quam  suam  dixit."  29 

On  Christ's  absolute  sinlessness  all  are  agreed,  but  with 
regard  to  the  natural  consequences  of  the  Incarnation  there 
is  some  discrepancy  among  the  Western  writers,  as  there  was 
also  among  those  of  the  East.  Thus  St.  Hilary  is  inclined  to 
believe  that  Christ  was  normally  not  capable  of  suffering,  both 
because  of  the  intimate  union  of  His  human  nature  with  the 
Word  and  by  reason  of  His  virginal  birth;  whilst  the  others 
commonly  teach  that  Christ  came  in  a  passible  nature,  and 
was  therefore  in  consequence  of  the  Incarnation  subject  to 
all  our  natural  weaknesses  and  infirmities,  sin  alone  excepted. 

There  is  also  some  difference  of  views  in  regard  to  Christ's 
mental  perfections.  Whilst  Hilary  holds  that  Christ  was 
perfect  in  all  human  knowledge  and  incapable  of  real  progress 
in  virtue,  Jerome  is  inclined  to  look  upon  the  progress  of  Jesus 
in  wisdom  and  grace,  of  which  the  Evangelist  speaks,  as  ob 
jective  and  real.  Ambrose  is  rather  undecided,  although  he 
favors  the  view  taken  by  Hilary.  In  general,  however,  the 
Latin  writers  of  this  period  regard  the  human  knowledge  of 
the  Saviour  as  perfect,  although  in  view  of  His  mission  it 
was  not  always  communicable  to  others.  So  was  He  also 
perfect  in  grace,  and  therefore  the  Scripture  texts  that  seem 
to  imply  the  contrary  must  be  understood  to  refer  simply  to  a 
progressive  outward  manifestation  of  what  was  in  itself  per 
fect  from  the  beginning. 

The  Christological  teaching  of  these  Western  writers  is 
also  found  in  the  works  of  St.  Augustine,  but  in  many  in 
stances  he  added  some  further  developments  of  his  own.  The 
Son  of  God,  he  says,  assumed  a  real  human  body  from  a 
woman,  so  that  both  sexes  might  overcome  Satan,  and  that 
woman,  who  had  been  the  cause  of  death,  might  also  be  the 
cause  of  life.30  The  formation  of  Christ's  human  nature  is 

28  Cont.  Arian.  5,  18.  30  De  Agon.  Christi.  20,  24. 

29(De  Fide,  2,  53. 


THE  WORD  INCARNATE  315 

the  work  of  the  whole  Trinity,  although  it  is  rightly  appro 
priated  to  the  Holy  Spirit.31  Christ's  was  a  virginal  birth: 
"  Concipiens  virgo,  pariens  virgo,  virgo  gravida,  virgo  feta, 
virgo  perpetua."  32  As  will  be  noticed,  this  is  but  a  summary 
restatement  of  traditions  that  reach  back  to  the  earliest  cen 
turies.  His  own  contributions  to  Christology  refer  more 
directly  to  the  nature  of  the  union. 

Because  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Word,  Christ  is  at  one 
and  the  same  time  perfect  God  and  perfect  man.  He  is  per 
fect  God  by  reason  of  the  person  assuming,  and  perfect  man 
by  reason  of  the  nature  assumed;  not  that  the  one  was 
in  any  way  changed  into  the  other,  but  because  the  union  is 
so  intimate  that  the  two  natures,  though  remaining  distinct, 
are  possessed  by  one  person  as  His  very  own.  "  The  same 
who  is  God  is  also  man,  and  the  same  who  is  man  is  also  God, 
not  by  a  confusion  of  natures,  but  by  the  unity  of  person."  33 
And  this  union  took  place  at  the  moment  of  conception,  so 
that  He  who  was  born  of  the  Virgin  was  truly  Son  of  God. 
"  The  man  (in  Christ)  was  never  man  in  such  a  way  that  He 
was  not  also  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  on  account  of 
the  only-begotten  Word." 34  Hence,  even  as  man,  Christ 
cannot  be  called  an  adopted  Son  of  God.  And  this  inference 
the  author  states  explicitly :  "  Read  the  Scriptures,  nowhere 
will  you  find  it  said  of  Christ  that  He  is  God's  adopted  Son. 
There  are  not  two  sons  of  God,  God  and  man,  but  one  Son 
of  God."  35 

Yet  the  humanity  of  Christ,  which  is  thus  incapable  of 
divine  adoption,  is  complete  and  perfect,  consisting  not  only 
of  a  body,  living  and  sensitive,  but  also  of  a  rational  soul. 
"  For  there  was  in  Christ  a  human  soul,  a  whole  soul,  not 
only  the  irrational  part,  but  also  the  rational  which  is  called 
mind."  3G  Hence  the  logical  inference  is  that  the  union  was 
hypostatic,  for  this  alone  would  make  adoption  impossible. 
And  this  seems  to  be  the  author's  consistent  view,  in  spite  of 
his  occasionally  comparing  the  union  with  that  which  makes 

31  Enchir.   38-40.  34  Opus  Imperf.  I,  138. 

32  Serm.  186,  I.  35  Cont.  Sec.  5. 

83  Ibid.  38  In  Joan,  tract.  23,  6. 


3i6    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

soul  and  body  one  being.  God  Himself,  he  says,  remains  God, 
but  man  is  united  to  God,  and  there  results  one  person;  not 
so  that  Christ  be  half  God  and  half  man,  but  perfect  God  and 
perfect  man,  possessing  the  two  natures  in  the  unity  of  per 
son.37  To  this  exposition  the  later  Scholastics  could  add  but 
little. 

The  Christological  teaching  of  these  centuries  is  summed 
up  in  the  Athanasian  Symbol  as  follows :  "  But  for  eternal 
salvation  it  is  necessary  that  one  also  faithfully  believe  the 
Incarnation  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  right  faith  there 
fore  is  this,  that  we  believe  and  confess  that  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  God  and  Man.  He  is  God  begotten 
before  the  ages  of  the  substance  of  the  Father,  and  He  is  man 
born  in  time  of  the  substance  of  His  mother.  Perfect  God, 
perfect  man :  subsisting  in  a  rational  soul  and  human  flesh. 
Equal  to  the  Father  according  to  the  divinity :  less  than  the 
Father  according  to  the  humanity.  Who,  although  God  and 
man,  is  nevertheless  not  two,  but  one  Christ.  One  not  by  a 
conversion  of  the  divinity  into  the  flesh,  but  by  an  assumption 
of  the  humanity  into  God.  Altogether  one,  not  by  a  con 
fusion  of  substance,  but  by  the  unity  of  person.  For  as  the 
rational  soul  and  the  flesh  is  one  man,  so  is  God  and  man  one 
Christ."  Of  course,  this  symbol  did  not  then  have  the  force 
of  a  definition  of  the  faith,  but  as  it  was  shortly  after  the  fifth 
century  quite  generally  accepted,  in  the  East  as  well  as  in 
the  West,  it  bears  a  most  valuable  testimony  to  the  faith  of 
those  times. 

B  —  THE  REDEMPTION  OF  THE  WORLD 

Nearly  all  the  writers  referred  to  in  the  preceding  section 
drew  their  arguments  for  the  divinity  of  Christ  from  the  na 
ture  of  His  redemptive  work.  They  looked  upon  it  as  more 
or  less  self-evident  that  if  Christ  was  really  the  Redeemer  of 
the  world,  who  lifted  up  the  fallen  race  and  reunited  it  to  God, 
then  He  Himself  must  be  God.  Sin  had  corrupted  human 
nature  in  its  inmost  being,  and  this  corruption  could  not  be 

87  De  Civit.  Dei,  12,  2. 


THE  REDEMPTION  OF  THE  WORLD  317 

done  away  with,  except  the  nature  so  corrupted  be  brought 
into  physical  contact  with  the  Godhead.  Not  that  this  was 
absolutely  necessary  for  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  but  it  was  re 
quired  for  the  full  restoration  of  our  fallen  nature  to  its 
union  with  God.  Hence  these  writers  infer  the  necessity  of 
the  Incarnation  from  the  redeeming  will  of  the  all-merciful 
Father.  He  wished  to  save  sinful  man,  therefore  His  only- 
begotten  Son  must  assume  human  nature  and  through  it  ac 
complish  man's  redemption.  It  is  true,  as  they  all  admit,  He 
could  have  saved  the  world  in  other  ways,  but  none  would 
have  been  as  suitable  and  as  effective  in  remedying  the  dis 
astrous  consequences  of  sin;  therefore,  presupposing  the  re 
deeming  will  of  God  and  taking  it  in  its  fullest  sense,  as  we 
are  entitled  to  do  from  the  teaching  of  Holy  Scripture,  the 
Incarnation  was  a  matter  of  necessity.  This  seems  to  have 
been  the  common  view  of  all  these  theologians,  as  will  appear 
more  clearly  from  a  brief  summary  of  their  teaching  on  the 
subject  of  redemption. 

In  the  Antenicene  writers  two  aspects  of  the  redemption 
are  usually  brought  out  very  prominently.  The  first  is  that 
Christ  was  the  representative  of  the  fallen  race,  the  second 
Adam,  who  in  some  way  gathered  up  all  mankind  in  Himself, 
so  that  in  His  death  for  sin  all  died  with  Him  and  were 
thereby  restored  to  newness  of  life.  This  is  much  insisted 
on  by  St.  Irenseus,  who  comes  back  to  it  in  several  places. 
Thus  speaking  of  what  the  Incarnation  of  the  Word  really 
means,  he  says :  "  When  He  was  incarnate  and  made  man, 
He  summed  up  in  Himself  the  long  roll  of  the  human  race, 
securing  for  us  all  a  summary  salvation,  so  that  we  should 
regain  in  Christ  Jesus  what  we  had  lost  in  Adam,  namely,  the 
being  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  God."  38  The  other  view 
represented  Christ  as  the  juridical  substitute  for  the  fallen 
race,  who  in  the  place  of  sinners  made  satisfaction  to  God  for 
the  offences  committed  against  His  sovereign  majesty.  This 
we  find  already  considerably  developed  in  the  Letter  to 
Diognetus.  Referring  to  the  Incarnation  as  "  a  grand  and 
unspeakable  thing,"  the  author  continues :  "  O  the  boundless 

38  Adv.  Haer.  5,  21,  i. 


318    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

love  of  God !  He  hated  us  not,  nor  did  He  cast  us  away,  nor 
did  He  take  revenge.  On  the  contrary,  He  suffered  us  to 
be,  and  yet  more,  moved  by  mercy,  He  loaded  Himself  with 
our  sins,  and  gave  His  own  Son  as  a  redemption  for  us,  the 
Holy  for  the  wicked,  the  Blameless  for  the  guilty,  the  Right 
eous  for  the  unrighteous,  the  Incorruptible  for  the  corruptible, 
the  Immortal  for  mortal  men;  for  what  else  could  have 
blotted  out  our  sins  save  His  righteousness  ?  Who  could  have 
justified  us  impious  sinners  save  only  the  Son  of  God?"39 
As  is  evident,  both  of  these  views  are  based  upon  the  teaching 
of  St.  Paul. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  third  century  two  other  aspects  of 
the  redemption  came  into  prominence.  In  the  one,  which  is 
developed  to  some  extent  by  Origen,  there  is  question  of  a 
ransom  being  paid  to  Satan  for  the  liberation  of  sinful  man 
from  his  slavery.  By  the  free  exercise  of  his  will,  man  had 
yielded  to  the  inducements  set  before  him  by  Satan,  and  thus 
sold  himself  into  captivity.  God  could  indeed  have  liberated 
him  by  force,  but  it  was  more  in  accord  with  His  justice  that 
He  should  do  so  by  the  payment  of  a  ransom.  This  con 
sisted  in  the  death  of  Jesus,  in  as  much  as  Satan  instigated  the 
Jews  to  crucify  Him  unjustly,  and  for  that  he  was  rightly 
deprived  of  his  dominion  over  man.  In  the  other  view  the 
sanctification  of  the  human  race  through  the  Incarnation  itself 
is  emphasized.  Origen  speaks  of  it  as  follows :  "  Since  the 
Incarnation  the  divine  and  the  human  nature  began  to  be 
woven  together,  in  order  that  the  human  nature  might  become 
divine  through  a  communication  with  the  more  divine,  not 
only  in  Jesus  but  also  in  all  those  who  along  with  belief  receive 
the  life  which  Jesus  taught."  40 

In  the  course  of  the  fourth  century  these  different  views, 
which  had  till  then  been  stated  more  or  less  casually,  were 
gradually  reduced  to  three  separate  theories  concerning  the 
redemption.  The  first  is  known  as  the  Physical  or  Mystical 
Theory,  according  to  which  the  Incarnation  itself  has  in  some 
way  a  redemptive  value,  in  as  much  as  sinful  human  nature 

39  Ad  Diognet.  9.  40  Cont.  Cels.  3,  28. 


THE  REDEMPTION  OF  THE  WORLD 


319 


by  its  contact  with  the  divinity,  through  the  humanity  of  the 
God-Man,  is  cleansed  and  sanctified  and  raised  to  new  life. 
This  was  much  favored  by  St.  Athanasius  and  St.  Gregory 
of  Nyssa.  The  former  says:  "Just  as  when  a  great  king 
has  entered  some  important  city  and  takes  up  his  dwelling  in 
the  houses  thereof,  such  a  city  is  certainly  deemed  worthy  of 
honor,  and  no  enemy  or  bandit  any  more  attacks  or  over 
powers  it,  but  it  is  counted  worthy  of  all  respect  because  of 
the  king  who  has  taken  up  his  dwelling  in  one  of  its  houses; 
so  it  has  happened  in  the -case  of  the  King  of  all.  For  since 
He  came  into  our  domain  and  took  up  His  dwelling  in  a  body 
like  ours,  attacks  of  enemies  upon  men  have  entirely  ceased, 
and  the  corruption  of  death  which  of  old  prevailed  against 
them  has  vanished  away."  41 

The  second,  whilst  not  excluding  the  foregoing,  lays  special 
stress  on  the  sufferings  and  death  of  the  Saviour,  as  a  satis 
faction  offered  to  the  justice  of  God.  Man  by  his  sins  con 
tracted  a  debt  with  God  which  he  was  unable  to  pay;  hence 
the  sinless  Christ  substitutes  Himself  for  sinful  man,  offering 
a  condign  and  superabundant  satisfaction  to  God's  offended 
majesty.  This  is  usually  called  the  Realistic  or  Substitution 
Theory.  It  was  strongly  defended  by  Basil,  Didymus, 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  and  Chrysostom,  and  was  admitted  by 
all  the  others.  A  few  citations  will  be  sufficient  to  show  us 
the  mind  of  these  writers. 

Thus  Basil,  drawing  from  the  redemption  an  argument  for 
the  divinity  of  Christ,  says :  "  Moses  did  not  deliver  his 
people  from  sin,  he  was  unable  even  to  offer  an  expiation  to 
God  for  himself  when  he  was  in  sin.  Hence  it  is  not  from 
a  man  that  we  must  expect  this  expiation,  but  from  one  who 
surpasses  our  nature,  from  Jesus  Christ  the  God-Man,  who 
alone  can  offer  God  a  sufficient  expiation  for  us  all." 42 
Similarly  Gregory  of  Nazianzus :  "  He  delivers  us  from  the 
power  of  sin  by  giving  Himself  in  our  stead  as  a  ransom  which 
cleanses  the  world."43  And  again:  "Just  as  He  became 
a  curse  and  sin  for  my  salvation,  He  made  Himself  into  a 

41  De  Incarn.  9.  43  Orat.  30,  20. 

« In  Ps.  48,  3-4- 


320          FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

second  Adam  instead  of  the  old;  He  took  unto  Himself  and 
made  His  own  our  rebellion,  as  the  head  of  the  whole  body. 
On  the  cross  it  was  not  He  who  was  forsaken;  He  occupied 
our  own  position ;  it  was  ourselves  who  were  abandoned  and  de 
spised;  He  saved  us  by  His  sufferings,  for  He  made  our  sins 
His  own."  44  With  this  Gregory  of  Nyssa  connects  Christ's 
priesthood :  "  With  His  own  blood  He  presented  the  priestly 
expiation  for  sin.  He  sacrificed  His  own  body  for  the  sins 
of  the  world.  He  humbled  Himself  in  the  form  of  a  servant 
and  offered  Himself  in  sacrifice  for  us."  45 

The  third  theory  that  began  to  be  rather  common  during 
the  fourth  century  is  styled  the  Satan's  Rights  Theory,  to 
which  reference  was  made  in  a  preceding  paragraph.  It  was 
strongly  emphasized  by  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and  frequently 
made  use  of  by  most  of  the  others  in  their  sermons  to  the 
people.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  however,  rejects  it  abso 
lutely.  "  Was  the  ransom  paid  to  the  evil  one  ? "  he  asks 
indignantly;  "it  is  a  monstrous  thought.  If  to  the  evil  one, 
what  an  outrage  ?  Then  the  robber  receives  a  ransom,  not 
only  from  God,  but  one  which  consists  of  God  Himself,  and 
for  his  usurpation  he  gets  so  illustrious  a  payment  —  a  pay 
ment  for  which  it  would  have  been  right  to  have  left  us  alone 
altogether."  46  No  doubt,  if  put  in  this  way,  the  thought  is 
"  monstrous,"  but  most  of  these  writers  used  it  for  oratorical 
purposes,  emphasizing  the  teaching  of  the  Apostle  that  he  who 
sins  becomes  the  servant  of  sin;  and  in  this  sense,  barring  a 
few  oratorical  exaggerations,  there  was  nothing  "  monstrous  " 
about  either  the  thought  or  its  popular  presentation. 

The  fruit  of  the  redemption  is  placed  by  all  in  man's  resti 
tution  to  the  place  whence  he  had  fallen  by  sin.  It  gives  back 
to  him  what  he  had  lost,  frees  him  from  sin  and  death,  restores 
immortality,  and  deifies  him.  "Jesus,  who  was  God's  own 
Son,  became  son  of  man  in  order  to  make  the  sons  of  men 
children  of  God."  47 

With  this  teaching  the  Western  writers  are  in  perfect  agree- 

44  Ibid.  5.  47  Chrysost.    In  Joan.  Horn.  2,  I ; 

45  Cont.  Eunom.  6.  cfr.  Athan.  Ad  Adeph.  4. 

46  Orat.  45,  22. 


THE  REDEMPTION  OF  THE  WORLD  321 

ment;  however,  they  usually  emphasize  the  Realistic  or  Sub 
stitution  Theory  of  redemption.  "  As  all  men,"  says  Am 
brose,  "  were  held  in  an  hereditary  bondage,  it  was  necessary 
that  Jesus  should  take  up  our  cause,  should  be  substituted  for 
us,  and  that,  assuming  the  debt  of  us  all  and  becoming  our 
security,  He  should  suffer,  atone,  and  pay  in  the  name  and 
stead  of  us  all."  48  But  this  substitution  was  entirely  volun 
tary  on  the  part  of  Christ.  "  He  offered  Himself  to  the  death 
of  the  accursed,"  writes  Hilary,  "  so  that  He  might  remove 
the  curse  of  the  law,  presenting  Himself  voluntarily  as  a  victim 
to  God  the  Father." 49  The  satisfaction  which  He  thus 
rendered  was  a  superabundant  atonement  and  redemption  for 
all  the  sins  of  the  world.50  It  was  a  true  sacrifice  of  propitia 
tion  :  "  For  according  to  the  Apostle  He  is  our  peace-offer 
ing,  in  whose  blood  we  have  been  reconciled  to  God."  51 

To  this  teaching  St.  Augustine  added  little  by  way  of  fur 
ther  development.  His  leading  thesis  is :  "If  man  had  not 
perished,  the  Son  of  man  would  not  have  come."  52  Hence, 
the  redemption  of  mankind  from  sin  forms  the  primary  mo 
tive  of  the  Incarnation.  Christ  came  indeed  also  to  manifest 
God's  wisdom,  and  to  give  us  an  example  of  right  living,  but 
all  this  is  secondary.53  In  our  utter  misery,  resulting  from 
sin,  God  wished  to  give  us  hope,  and  he  had  no  more  effective 
means  of  doing  this  than  to  show  us  what  a  price  He  was 
willing  to  pay  for  our  redemption.  Hence,  the  Son,  whom  He 
had  begotten  from  His  own  substance,  entered  into  fellow 
ship  with  our  nature,  bore  our  sins,  endured  all  our  ills,  and 
opened  up  for  us  again  the  way  to  eternal  life.54  Hence,  the 
Incarnation,  in  all  its  aims  and  purposes,  is  a  work  of  love. 
And  this  love  of  God  does  not  merely  result  from  the  In 
carnation,  but  preceded  it  as  a  motive  cause.  "  For  it  was 
not  from  the  time  that  we  were  reconciled  to  Him  by  the 
blood  of  His  Son  that  He  began  to  love  us ;  but  He  loved  us 
from  the  foundation  of  the  World.  .  .  .  We  were  reconciled 

48  In  Ps.  118;  De  Incarn.  60.  52  Serm,   174,  2. 

49  In  Ps.  53,  13.  53  In  Joan,  tract.  98,  3. 
80  Ambrose,  In  Ps.  48,  13-15.                   54  De  Trin.  13,  13. 

« Id.  In  Ps.  54,  4- 


322 


FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 


unto  Him  who  already  loved  us,  but  with  whom  we  were  at 
enmity  because  of  our  sins."  55 

In  his  further  development  of  the  subject,  St.  Augustine 
considers  the  redemption  under  many  different  aspects. 
Christ  is  our  substitute,  He  paid  our  ransom,  He  gave  satis 
faction  for  our  sins,  He  offered  for  us  a  propitiatory  sacri 
fice.56  In  principle  the  redemption  is  universal,  but  in  fact 
those  only  profit  by  it  who  are  willing  to  do  so.57 

In  this  condition  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  remained 
during  the  rest  of  the  Patristic  age,  except  that  the  Substi 
tution  Theory  of  redemption  was  gradually  gaining  ground. 
The  one  point  that  was  ever  retained,  and  which  had  been 
emphasized  from  the  very  beginning  of  Christianity,  was  the 
fact  of  the  redemption  itself.  Christ  truly  redeemed  us  from 
sin,  and  through  Him  were  we  reconciled  to  the  Father. 

55  Tract.  In  Joan  90,  6.  Trin.  13,  21 ;  4,  17. 

58  Cf r.  Cont.  Faust.  14,  6,  7 ;  De         57  Serm.  244,  5. 


CHAPTER  XXI 

THE  DONATIST  HERESY:    ECCLESIOLOGY 1 

From  the  very  beginning  of  Christianity  it  was  a  cardinal 
point  of  orthodox  teaching  that  the  fruits  of  the  redemption 
were  laid  up  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  that  salvation  was  made 
dependent  on  her  ministrations,  and  that  therefore  Christian 
life  must  necessarily  bear  a  social  aspect.  This  idea,  which 
is  indeed  fundamental  in  Christ's  message  to  the  world,  was 
in  course  of  time  more  and  more  emphasized  in  proportion 
as  heresies  and  schisms  threatened  to  rend  asunder  the  unity 
of  the  Church.  On  such  occasions  it  became  necessary  for 
the  defenders  of  orthodoxy  and  Church  unity  to  place  the 
social  aspect  of  Christianity  in  the  foreground,  and  to  clear 
up  ideas  on  ecclesiastical  government  and  sacerdotal  powers. 
During  the  fourth  century  this  work  devolved  largely  on  the 
theologians  of  the  West,  as  it  was  chiefly  there  that  the 
Donatist  schism  brought  the  question  to  an  issue.  Besides, 
during  this  period,  as  was  indicated  in  the  preceding  chapters, 
the  East  was  kept  busy  with  its  Trinitarian  and  Christological 
controversies,  and  so  the  discussion  of  ecclesiological  prob 
lems  was  in  large  measure  left  to  Western  theologians. 

The  Donatist  schism,  which  affected  chiefly  the  Church  in 
Africa,  dated  from  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  and 
was  indirectly  a  result  of  Diocletian's  persecution.  In  311 
the  archdeacon  Caecilian  was  elected  successor  to  Mensurius, 
the  late  bishop  of  Carthage.  He  was  consecrated  by  Felix  of 
Aptonga,  whom  many  regarded  as  a  traditor,  because  he  was 
reported  to  have  given  up  the  Holy  Books  during  the  perse 
cution.  Professedly  on  this  account  a  strong  party  was  formed 

1  Cfr.   Leclercq,   L'Afrique   Chre-      Christian  Doctrine,  357-375 ;  Tixer- 
tienne,   I ;   *Bethune-Baker,  An  In-      ont,  H.  D.  II,  220-229. 
troduction  to  the  Early  History  of 

323 


3^4 


FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 


against  Caecilian,  though  the  opposition  to  him  seems  to  have 
been  instigated  by  a  certain  Lucilla,  a  rich  lady,  whom  he  had 
somehow  offended.  In  the  following  year  about  seventy 
bishops  gathered  at  Carthage,  and  although  not  a  few  of  them 
were  themselves  traditorcs,  they  deposed  Csecilian  and  in  his 
stead  consecrated  Majorinus,  who  was  of  the  household  of 
Lucilla.  Two  years  later  Majorinus  was  succeeded  by  Do- 
natus,  from  whom  the  party  took  its  name.  On  account  of 
his  strict  asceticism  and  singular  executive  ability,  he  is  known 
to  history  as  Donatus  the  Great.  He  thoroughly  organized 
the  party  and  wrote  voluminously  in  its  defense.  Soon  the 
whole  of  Proconsular  Africa  and  Numidia  were  involved  in 
the  strife.  Pope  and  Emperor  tried  repeatedly  to  settle  the 
dispute,  but  it  dragged  its  weary  length  through  the  whole  of 
the  fourth  century.  In  spite  of  the  condemnation  passed  upon 
the  schismatics,  first  by  a  commission  of  bishops  at  Rome,  in 
313,  and  then  by  the  Council  of  Aries,  in  314,  the  party  in 
creased  so  rapidly  that  by  the  middle  of  the  century  it  counted 
over  300  bishops.  It  was  only  through  the  patient  efforts  of 
St.  Augustine,  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  fifth  century,  that 
peace  was  finally  restored. 

Although  it  is  rather  difficult  to  absolve  the  Donatists  from 
the  reproach  of  heresy,  still  Augustine  always  treated  them 
merely  as  schismatics.  The  doctrinal  points  involved  in  the 
dispute  bore  chiefly  upon  the  Church  and  the  administration 
of  the  sacraments.  Public  and  notorious  sinners,  it  was  con 
tended,  do  not  belong  to  the  Church;  and  outside  the  true 
Church,  by  which  of  course  the  Donatist  sect  was  understood, 
no  sacraments  can  be  administered  validly.  The  first  of  these 
contentions  the  sectaries  tried  to  defend  by  adducing  the  state 
ment  of  St.  Paul,  that  Christ  disposed  unto  Himself  a  holy 
Church,  not  having  spot  or  wrinkle.  This  should  logically 
have  led  them  to  exclude  all  secret  sinners  as  well,  but  for 
reasons  of  their  own  they  maintained  that  it  applied  to  public 
and  notorious  sinners  only.  Their  second  contention  they 
based  upon  the  principle  that  no  one  can  give  what  he  himself 
does  not  possess.  The  sacraments,  they  said,  belong  to  the 
Church,  and  therefore  they  can  be  validly  administered  only 


THE  DONATIST  SCHISM :     ECCLESIOLOGY      325 

by  a  member  of  her  communion.  In  this,  moreover,  they 
appealed  to  the  authority  of  St.  Cyprian,  who  some  sixty  years 
before  had  taken  a  similar  stand. 

It  was  chiefly  in  connection  with  these  contentions  of  the 
Donatists  that  the  Western  theologians  found  occasion  to  set 
forth  their  ideas  on  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  to  explain  some 
what  in  detail  points  of  doctrine  which  had  till  then  been 
referred  to  only  in  a  general  way.  However  before  examin 
ing  into  this,  it  may  be  well  to  give  a  brief  outline  of  what 
was  taught  on  this  subject  by  contemporary  writers  in  the 
East,  whose  views  were  not  influenced  by  the  Donatist  con 
troversy.  This  will  make  it  more  easy  to  detect  the  par 
ticular  developments  of  doctrine  that  resulted  from  the  dis 
cussion.  The  following  points  will  suffice  for  the  purpose : 

i°.  Although  the  Eastern  writers  of  this  period  did  not 
treat  the  matter  professedly,  still  their  casual  references  to  it 
show  with  sufficient  clearness  that  they  adhered  closely  to  the 
traditional  view,  already  somewhat  developed  during  the  sec 
ond  and  third  centuries.  According  to  this,  the  Church  is  the 
spouse  of  Christ,  the  mother  of  His  children,  the  depository 
of  the  spiritual  treasures  which  were  purchased  by  the  redemp 
tion.  Thence  is  inferred  the  unity  of  the  Church,  and  the 
obligation  incumbent  upon  all  to  belong  to  her  communion. 
This  union  is  destroyed  not  only  by  heretics  who  alter  her 
doctrines,  but  also  by  schismatics  who  refuse  to  acknowledge 
her  authority.  For  the  Church  is  infallible  in  her  teaching, 
she  is  the  pillar  and  groundwork  of  the  truth,  and  was  destined 
by  Christ  to  spread  over  all  the  world  and  to  embrace  all 
mankind.2 

2°.  The  Church  is  Catholic  not  only  in  her  universality, 
but  also  in  opposition  to  the  sects.  "  When  you  are  traveling 
to  other  cities,"  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  tells  his  hearers,  "  do 
not  ask  simply  where  is  the  Dominicum,  the  House  of  the 
Lord ;  for  the  impious  and  heretical  sects  also  designate  their 
dens  by  this  name;  nor  ask  simply  where  is  the  Church,  but 
where  is  the  Catholic  Church :  because  this  is  the  proper  name 

2  Cf  r.  Chrysost.  In  Ep.  ad  Ephes.      Greg.     Naz.     Orat.     18,    6 ;     Cyril, 
Horn,  n,  5;  In  Matt.  Horn.  54,  2;      Catech.  18,  23. 


326         FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

of  this  holy  mother,  the  mother  of  us  all."  3  St.  Epiphanius 
brings  out  this  same  point.  "  We  never  heard,"  he  says,  "  of 
Petrines,  or  Paulines,  or  Bartholomaeans,  or  Thadseans,  but 
from  the  first  there  was  one  preaching  of  all  the  Apostles,  not 
preaching  themselves,  but  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord.  Wherefore 
also  all  gave  one  name  to  the  Church,  not  their  own,  but  that 
of  their  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  since  they  began  to  be  called  Chris 
tians  first  at  Antioch ;  which  is  the  sole  Catholic  Church,  hav 
ing  naught  else  but  what  is  Christ's,  being  a  church  of  Chris 
tians;  not  of  Christs,  but  of  Christians;  He  being  one,  they 
are  from  that  one  called  Christians.  Besides  this  church 
and  her  preachers,  there  are  none  others  of  such  a  character, 
as  is  shown  by  their  own  epithets,  Manichseans,  and  Simonians, 
and  Valentinians,  and  Ebionites."  4 

It  is  to  this  Church  that  the  name  "  One  Holy  Catholic  " 
belongs.  To  this  all  bear  witness.  Besides,  the  four  notes  of 
the  Church,  which  are  defended  as  essential  in  Catholic  the 
ology  to-day,  are  thus  given  in  the  symbol  ascribed  to  the 
Council  of  Constantinople,  held  in  381 :  "  We  confess  One 
Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church/'  This  symbol,  which 
most  likely  had  its  origin  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  was 
approved  by  the  council  just  mentioned,  and  implicitly  also  by 
that  of  Chalcedon  in  451,  shortly  after  which  it  was  received 
into  the  liturgy.  Its  teaching,  therefore,  embodies  the  com 
mon  view  of  Eastern  theologians  during  these  centuries. 

3°.  The  government  of  the  Church  is  hierarchial,  and  the 
distinction  between  the  higher  orders  is  not  merely  a  matter 
of  ecclesiastical  legislation.  It  involves  a  difference  of  powers 
which  were  conceded  by  God.  Thus  Epiphanius  writes: 
"  To  say  that  priests  and  bishops  are  equal  is  the  height  of 
stupidity,  as  is  plain  to  any  prudent  man.  For  how  could  this 
be?  The  order  of  the  episcopacy  has  for  its  object  to  beget 
fathers,  for  it  brings  forth  fathers  to  the  Church;  but  the 
presbyterate.  as  it  cannot  beget  fathers,  brings  forth  children 
to  the  Church  through  the  laver  of  regeneration ;  not,  however, 
fathers  and  teachers.  And  how  is  it  possible  that  he  should 

3  Ibid.  26.  4  Panar.  42. 


THE  DONATIST  SCHISM :    ECCLESIOLOGY 


327 


appoint  any  one  as  priest,  who  has  not  the  power  to  make 
him  such  by  the  imposition  of  hands  ?  "  5 

4°.  The  Church  was  founded  on  Peter,  who  established  his 
episcopal  see  at  Rome,  and  died  there  after  having  governed 
the  faithful  since  his  arrival  in  the  imperial  city  during  twenty- 
five  years.  This  view  is  recorded  by  Eusebius  and  seems  to 
have  been  universally  accepted.6  The  Primacy  of  Peter  is 
frequently  alluded  to  by  fourth  century  writers  in  the  East, 
and  some  of  them  grow  quite  enthusiastic  when  they  refer 
to  his  prerogatives  as  prince  of  the  Apostles.  They  all  agree 
with  St.  Ephrem,  who  impersonating  Christ  thus  addresses 
Simon  Peter :  "  Simon,  my  disciple,  I  have  placed  thee  as  the 
foundation  of  my  Holy  Church.  Before  I  called  thee  Rock, 
because  thou  shalt  bear  up  the  whole  building.  Thou  art  the 
overseer  of  those  who  shall  build  up  for  me  the  Church  upon 
the  earth.  If  they  are  minded  to  build  badly,  do  thou  as  the 
foundation  restrain  them.  Thou  art  the  head  of  that  foun 
tain  from  which  my  doctrine  is  drawn,  thou  art  the  head  of 
my  disciples ;  through  thee  will  I  give  drink  to  all  the  nations. 
Thine  is  that  vivifying  sweetness  which  I  bestow.  Thee  have 
I  chosen  to  be  the  first-born  in  my  dispensation,  the  heir  of  my 
treasures ;  to  thee  have  I  given  the  keys  of  my  kingdom.  Be 
hold,  I  have  placed  thee  as  the  chief  Stewart  over  all  my 
treasures."  7 

5°.  From  this  double  fact,  that  Peter  had  established  his 
see  at  Rome  and  that  he  had  received  charge  over  the  whole 
Church,  the  inference  was  as  obvious  as  it  was  inevitable  that 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  held  the  Primacy  over  all  the  churches 
that  claimed  communion  with  the  Church  of  Christ.  And 
this  inference  was  clearly  drawn  by  the  bishops  of  the  East, 
although  they  gave  expression  to  it  by  their  acts  rather  than 
in  words.  Thus  when  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  was  sus 
pected  of  heresy,  his  own  church  reported  him  to  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  who  unhesitatingly  called  him  to  account,  and 
Dionysius  rendered  his  account  without  a  thought  of  ques- 

6  Ibid.  75,  4.  Didym.  De  Trin.  I,  27,  30;  Epiph. 

6  Hist.  Eccl.  2,  14;  15.  Anchor.  9,  34;  Id.  De  ludic.  7. 

7  Serm.  in  Hebd.  Sanct.  4,  I ;  cfr. 


328    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

tioning  the  Pope's  authority  in  the  matter.  When  Athanasius 
was  persecuted  by  the  Eusebians,  "  he  sought  refuge  in  Rome 
as  in  a  most  safe  harbor  of  his  communion."  And  when  Pope 
Julius  a  little  later  reprimanded  the  Eusebians  for  their  unjust 
deposition  of  Athanasius,  and  asked  them  as  one  having  au 
thority,  "  do  you  not  know  that  this  is  the  custom,  that  you 
should  first  write  to  us,  and  that  what  is  right  should  be 
settled  here  ? " —  this,  as  is  stated  by  the  Greek  historians 
Sozomon  and  Socrates,  who  make  mention  of  it,  caused  no 
surprise  to  any  one."  8  It  was  precisely  what  all  the  world 
somehow  took  for  granted  as  the  proper  course  to  be  taken 
by  the  incumbent  of  Blessed  Peter's  see.  And  thus  scores  of 
other  instances  might  be  cited,  all  of  which  show  that  Rome's 
preeminence  was  generally  acknowledged  in  Eastern  countries, 
although  in  the  heat  of  the  conflict  it  was  often  set  aside  by 
the  discontented  parties. 

6°.  The  unwarranted  interference  of  dogmatizing  emperors 
with  the  affairs  of  the  Church  gave  the  defenders  of  her 
rights  many  an  opportunity  of  proclaiming  her  independence 
of  the  State  in  matters  appertaining  to  her  own  sphere.  Nor 
did  they  fail  to  speak  out  their  minds  boldly,  when  the  occasion 
for  so  doing  presented  itself.  "  The  domain  of  royalty  is 
one  thing,"  exclaims  Chrysostom,  "  and  the  power  of  the 
priesthood  is  another ;  it  excels  the  power  of  kings."  9  This, 
indeed,  was  not  the  language  of  court-bishops,  but  it  expressed 
the  views  of  all  those  who  were  faithful  to  their  duty  as  shep 
herds  of  Christ's  flock. 

These  fundamental  doctrines  on  the  nature  of  the  Church 
as  a  social  body,  the  importance  of  her  position  in  the  economy 
of  salvation,  her  de  jure  independence  of  State  interference, 
and  the  preeminence  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  a  logical  conse 
quence  of  his  acknowledged  succession  to  Peter,  were  also  held 
by  contemporary  Western  writers,  even  when  they  set  forth 
their  views  without  reference  to  the  Donatist  schism.  And 
the  reason  is  that  all  of  this  is  nothing  more  than  a  casual 
statement  of  what  was  found  to  be  contained  in  the  earliest 

8Sozom.  Hist.  Eccl.  3,  8,  10;  9  In  illud  "  Vidi  Dominum,"  Horn. 
Socrat.  2,  8,  15,  17.  4,  4,  5. 


THE  DONATIST  SCHISM:    ECCLESIOLOGY      329 

teaching  of  Christianity.  Clement  of  Rome,  Ignatius  of 
Antioch,  Irenseus  of  Lyons,  and  Cyprian  of  Carthage,  had 
advanced  the  same  doctrines  in  a  manner  equally  as  clear  and 
emphatic.  It  is  true,  they  made  no  direct  reference  to  the 
Church's  independence  of  State  interference;  but  the  reason 
of  the  omission  is  evident.  The  State  was  then  pagan,  and 
although  it  ventured  to  kill  Christian  believers,  it  did  at  least 
not  presume  to  define  Christian  faith. 

As  the  Donatist  schism  was  practically  confined  to  Africa, 
not  all  the  Western  theologians  took  part  in  the  discussion. 
The  brunt  of  the  battle  was  borne  by  two  African  bishops, 
Opatus  of  Mileve  and  Augustine  of  Hippo.  The  former  car 
ried  on  the  discussion  chiefly  with  Parmenian,  the  successor 
of  Donatus  in  the  see  of  Carthage,  and  the  latter  with  Petilian, 
Donatist  bishop  of  Cirta.  Besides  these,  however,  they  also 
met  other  adversaries. 

It  was  about  370  that  Opatus  wrote  his  great  work,  entitled, 
Contra  Parmenianum  Donatist  am.  It  comprises  seven  books, 
of  which  the  second  deals  with  the  doctrinal  aspect  of 
the  question.  Its  fundamental  thesis  is :  "  There  is  only  one 
Church  of  Christ,  and  this  is  the  one  that  is  in  communion 
with  the  Chair  of  Peter."  Around  this  all  his  other  exposi 
tions  and  arguments  are  ranged.10  In  order  to  understand  and 
follow  his  argumentation,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
Donatists  placed  the  holiness  of  the  Church  in  the  sanctity  of 
her  individual  members,  and  that  they  made  this  the  dis 
tinguishing  mark  of  the  true  Church.  Furthermore,  as  they 
recognized  no  holiness  except  in  persons  of  their  own  persua 
sion,  they  claimed,  logically  enough,  that  they  alone  constituted 
the  true  Church  of  Christ.  It  is  to  this  pretension  that  Optatus 
replies  in  the  second  book  of  his  work,  and  then  develops  his 
views  somewhat  further  in  the  seventh. 

Starting  from  the  general  concepts,  then  current  both  in 
the  West  and  in  the  East,  that  the  Church  is  "  the  house  of 
God  where  His  children  dwell,"  "  Christ's  mystical  body  of 
which  the  faithful  are  members,"  "  the  same  to-day  and  yes- 

10  Cont.  Parmen.  II,  28. 


330         FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

terday,  and  till  the  end  of  time,"  He  points  out  that  she  is  rec 
ognized  chiefly  by  two  marks  —  Catholicity  and  Unity. 
"  Therefore  the  Church  is  one,  whose  holiness  is  gathered 
from  her  sacraments,  and  not  measured  by  the  pride  of  per 
sons.  This  one  Church  cannot  be  identified  with  every  one 
of  the  different  heretical  sects,  nor  with  the  schismatical  bodies ; 
she  must  then  be  that  of  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  many 
communities.  You,  brother  Parmenian,  say  that  yours  is  the 
one  Church  of  Christ.  Therefore  she  is  in  this  small  country 
alone?  And  not  with  us?  Not  in  Spain,  in  Gaul,  in  Italy, 
where  you  are  not?  Nor  in  all  the  other  provinces  and  islands 
where  you  are  not  now,  nor  ever  will  be  ?  Where,  then,  is  the 
propriety  in  calling  her  Catholic,  since  she  is  termed  Catholic 
precisely  because  she  is  consistent  and  spread  all  over  the 
world?  This  was  promised  her  in  the  Saviour  to  whom  it 
was  said :  To  thee  will  I  give  the  Gentiles  for  an  inheritance, 
and  the  ends  of  the  earth  for  a  possession."  J1  Hence,  the 
author  concludes,  any  merely  national  church,  such  as  at  best 
the  Donatist  sect  is,  is  by  that  very  fact  shown  not  to  be  the 
Church  of  Christ. 

The  first  mark  of  the  Church,  therefore,  is  that  of  Catho 
licity  ;  the  second  is  Unity.  Parmian,  forced  by  the  exigencies 
of  the  controversy,  had  named  six  other  marks  besides  that  of 
holiness ;  five  of  these  Optatus  admits,  but  he  fixes  on  Unity  as 
the  most  essential.  The  Church  must  be  one,  excluding  both 
heresy  and  schism.  It  was  to  secure  this  that  Christ  made 
Peter  the  foundation  of  His  Church.  "  We  must  inquire, 
therefore,  where  Peter  established  his  cathedra.  Now  you 
cannot  deny  that  you  are  perfectly  aware  of  the  fact  that  Peter 
established  his  episcopal  chair  in  the  city  of  Rome,  where  he 
sat  as  the  head  of  all  the  Apostles.  That  thus  unity  might 
be  observed  by  them  all,  and  not  each  one  stand  up  for  his 
own,  thereby  becoming  a  schismatic  and  a  sinner.  In  this  one 
chair,  therefore,  which  holds  the  first  place  in  the  Saviour's 
dowry  to  His  Church,  first  Peter  sat,  who  was  succeeded  by 
Linus,  and  Linus  was  succeeded  by  Clement  .  .  .  and  Damasus 

11  Ibid.  II,  28,  29. 


THE  DON ATIST  SCHISM :     ECCLESIOLOGY      331 

was  succeeded  by  Siricius,  with  whom  to-day  we  are  in  com 
munion,  and  with  whom  all  the  world  through  epistolary  com 
munication  is  associated  in  the  unity  of  faith.  Do  you,  who 
wish  to  claim  the  Holy  Church  for  yourselves,  now  then  show 
the  origin  of  your  cathedra/' 12 

This  is  not  only  the  mark  of  Unity,  but  of  Apostolicity  as 
well;  for  it  is  a  unity  that  is  based  on  the  Primacy  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  in  virtue  of  his  succession  to  the  place  and 
the  prerogatives  of  Peter,  as  all  the  world  acknowledges. 
Hence  whatever  church  is  not  in  communion  with  Rome,  is 
by  that  very  fact  proved  to  be  not  the  Church  of  Christ. 
And  of  this  the  Donatists  themselves  are  aware,  for  they  have 
tried  to  establish  a  bishop  at  Rome ;  but  this  is  a  vain  endeavor, 
as  he  does  not  have  the  cathedra  whereon  Peter  sat.  He  is 
a  son  without  a  father,  a  disciple  without  a  master.13 

Then  taking  up  the  question  of  holiness,  the  author  admits 
that  the  Church  of  Christ  must  indeed  be  holy;  but  this  holi 
ness  does  not  exclude  sinners  from  her  fold.  She  is  the  field 
mentioned  in  the  Gospel,  wherein  wheat  and  cockle  grew  to 
gether  until  the  time  of  the  harvest.  Her  holiness  consists 
first  and  foremost  in  her  sacraments,  by  which  she  sanctifies 
her  children  and  receives  back  the  erring.  On  the  day  of 
judgment,  indeed,  there  shall  be  a  separation  of  the  good  and 
the  bad,  but  until  then  we  must  suffer  them  to  grow  up  together. 
For  it  is  unlawful  that  we  bishops  should  do  what  the  Apostles 
did  not  do,  who  gave  no  permission  either  to  separate  the  seed 
or  to  tear  up  the  cockle  from  among  the  wheat.  The  Blessed 
Peter  fell  by  denying  his  Master,  but  he  did  penance  and 
thereby  merited  to  be,  for  the  sake  of  unity,  the  sole  recipient 
of  the  keys,  the  use  of  which  he  was  also  to  communicate  to 
others.  If  you,  Donatists,  will  follow  his  example  and  be 
truly  converted  from  your  erring  ways,  why  should  the  Catho 
lic  Church  refuse  to  receive  you  back  into  her  communion?  14 

This  same  line  of  thought  was  also  followed  by  St.  Augus 
tine,  who  for  many  years,  in  letters  and  sermons  and  con 
troversial  treatises,  labored  strenuously  and  prudently  to  heal 

12  Ibid.  II,  31,  32.  i*  Ibid.  VII,  2,  3,  19. 

"Ibid.  II,  32,33. 


332          FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

the  terrible  schism,  until  during  the  three  days  conference  held 
at  Carthage,  in  411,  he  defended  the  Catholic  cause  with  such 
learning  and  charity  that  he  carried  all  before  him.  From 
that  time  forward  the  schism  gradually  declined,  although  it 
did  not  entirely  disappear  until  about  a  century  later. 

Although  Parmenian  had  been  thoroughly  refuted  by  Opta- 
tus,  still  the  Donatists  boasted  that  he  had  never  been  fully 
answered,  and  indeed  could  not  be  answered.  Augustine 
wrote  three  books  against  him  in  401,  and  about  the  same  time 
he  composed  seven  books  on  baptism,  in  which  he  shows  that 
the  Donatists'  appeal  to  Cyprian  in  support  of  their  schism 
is  extremely  foolish,  as  the  saintly  bishop  of  Carthage  never 
dreamed  of  separating  himself  from  the  universal  Church. 
Next  he  wrote  three  books  against  Petilian,  another  Donatist 
champion,  and  utterly  demolished  his  arguments.  And  when 
Petilian's  defense  was  taken  up  by  Cresconius,  Augustine  an 
swered  him  in  four  books.  To  these  controversial  works,  he 
added  a  treatise  on  the  Unity  of  the  Church,  addressed  to 
Catholics,  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  them  to  answer  the 
qnibblings  of  their  Donatist  friends.  Besides  this,  he  also 
treated  the  points  at  issue  in  several  letters  to  private  indi 
viduals,  of  which  those  to  Honoratus,  Generosus,  and  Glorius 
Felix  may  be  instanced. 

His  main  contention  in  all  these  writings  is  that  there  can 
be  no  reason  sufficiently  grave  to  justify  a  local  community  in 
separating  itself  from  the  universal  Church,  and  if  this  were 
nevertheless  done,  that  separation  alone  would  prove  to  evi 
dence  that  such  a  community  had  broken  with  the  Church  of 
Christ.  "  What  can  be  clearer,"  he  asks,  "  than  the  promises 
of  God  uttered  thousands  of  years  ago,  and  accomplished  be 
fore  our  own  eyes,  namely,  that  in  the  seed  of  Abraham,  which 
is  Christ,  all  nations  should  be  blessed?  And  what  more  ob 
scure  than  the  presumption  of  those  men  who  assert  that 
Christianity  has  perished  in  the  whole  world,  Africa  alone 
excepted  ?  And  this  presumption  of  theirs  they  call  light !  "  15 
"  The  question  between  us  is,  where  is  the  Church  ?  Christ 

15  Ad  Parmen.  2,  I. 


THE  DONATIST  SCHISM :    ECCLESIOLOGY      333 

says  in  all  nations.  And  you,  who  are  not  in  communion  with 
all  nations,  how  can  you  be  His  sheep  ?  Where  the  Church  is, 
there  is  His  fold.  Whoever,  therefore,  draw  away  men  from 
this  fold  are  but  ravening  wolves  that  slay  the  sheep,  by  sep 
arating  them  from  the  life  of  unity."  16  "  Therefore,  who 
ever  draws  away  any  one  from  the  universal  Church  to  any 
sect,  is  a  murderer  and  a  child  of  Satan."  17 

These  promises  contained  in  Holy  Writ,  that  the  Church  of 
Christ  should  be  universal,  embracing  all  mankind,  he  insists 
upon  again  and  again.  And  with  this  he  connects  the  idea  that 
the  Church  must  be  Apostolic.  Thus  writing  to  Generosus, 
he  says :  "  Holding,  therefore,  by  these  promises,  should  an 
angel  from  heaven  ask  you  to  quit  the  Christianity  of  the  whole 
world  and  pass  over  to  the  Donatists,  let  him  be  anathema. 
For  if  it  is  a  question  of  episcopal  succession,  the  surest  way 
is  to  count  from  Peter  himself,  to  whom,  as  representing  the 
whole  Church,  the  Lord  said :  '  On  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  her/  ' 
To  Peter  succeeded  Linus,  to  Linus  Clement  ...  to  Siricius, 
Anastasius,  who  now  occupies  the  same  see.  In  this  succession 
no  Donatist  occurs;  but  they  have  sent  one  from  Africa,  who 
governing  a  few  Africans  keeps  up  there  the  mountaineers."  18 

Thus  the  universal  Church  traces  back  her  origin  through 
the  Apostles  to  Christ  Himself,  and  she  shall  endure  till  the 
end  of  time.  She  is  truly  Apostolic  and  indefectible.  Com 
menting  on  verse  17  of  Psalm  44,  "Instead  of  thy  fathers, 
sons  are  born  to  thee,"  he  says :  "  Nothing  is  more  evident. 
Only  fix  your  eyes  on  the  temple  of  the  King,  because  thus 
He  speaks  in  respect  of  unity  diffused  over  all  the  earth.  .  .  . 
Instead  of  thy  fathers,  sons  are  born  to  thee.  The  Apostles 
brought  thee  forth:  they  were  sent,  they  preached,  they  are 
the  fathers.  But  could  they  remain  always  with  us  bodily? 
.  .  .  Even  to  the  present  time  ?  Even  till  the  remote  future  ? 
Was  then  the  Church  left  deserted  by  their  going  hence?  By 
no  means.  .  .  .  Instead  of  thy  fathers,  sons  are  born  to  thee. 
What  does  this  mean?  The  Apostles  were  sent  as  fathers, 

16  Ad  Petil.  2,  78.  18  Epist.  53. 

"  Ibid.  2,  13. 


334          FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

in  place  of  the  Apostles  sons  are  born  to  thee,  bishops  are 
constituted.  For  the  bishops  of  to-day,  who  are  dispersed  all 
through  the  world,  whence  were  they  born?  The  Church 
herself  calls  them  fathers,  she  brought  them  forth,  and  she 
placed  them  in  the  chairs  of  the  fathers.  Do  not  therefore 
consider  yourself  deserted,  because  you  see  not  Peter,  because 
you  see  not  Paul,  because  you  see  not  those  of  whom  you  were 
born :  of  your  own  children  has  grown  up  for  you  a  Paternity. 
.  .  .  See  the  temple  of  the  King,  how  widely  extended  it  is! 
.  .  .  This  is  the  Catholic  Church:  her  sons  are  constituted 
princes  over  all  the  earth ;  her  sons  have  been  put  in  the  place 
of  the  fathers.  Let  those  who  are  separated  from  her  acknowl 
edge  this,  let  them  return  to  the  unity,  let  them  be  brought 
into  the  temple  of  the  King.  This  temple  is  built  everywhere, 
placed  firmly  on  the  foundation  of  the  Prophets  and  the  Apos 
tles."  19 

This  wide  diffusion  of  the  Church,  of  course,  implies  unity ; 
without  that  she  would  not  be  Catholic.  The  sects  may  also 
be  widely  diffused,  if  one  takes  them  altogether,  but  this  does 
not  make  them  Catholic ;  because  they  are  not  united  into  one 
body,  each  one  differing  from  the  other  and  flourishing  in  its 
own  little  place.20  The  Church  is  the  spouse  of  Christ,  and 
as  such  she  is  one.  All  her  children  are  united  by  the  bond 
of  faith,  and  if  any  one  teaches  unsound  doctrines,  he  is  a 
heretic  and  must  be  avoided  as  an  enemy.21  They  are  all 
linked  together  by  a  mutual  charity,  avoiding  schism.  It  is 
a  unity  prefigured  by  the  Saviour's  seamless  coat.22  And 
finally  they  are  all  in  communion  with  the  cathedra  of  Peter.23 

And  this  Church  is  Holy,  but  with  a  holiness  that  does  not 
exclude  sinners.  She  is  a  "  corpus  permixtum,"  as  Christ 
Himself  pointed  out  in  His  parables  of  the  wheat  and  tares 
and  the  draw-net  with  its  good  fish  and  bad.  Her  sanctity, 
therefore,  does  not  primarily  consist  in  the  holiness  of  her 
individual  members,  but  rather  in  her  power  and  mission  to 
sanctify  all  by  teaching  the  truth  and  communicating  God's 

19  Enar.  in  Ps.  44,  32.  22  Serm.  265,  7- 

20  Serm.  46,  18.  23  Serm.  259,  2,  2. 

21  De  Civit.  Dei,  18,  51,  I. 


THE  DONATIST  SCHISM:     ECCLESIOLOGY      335 

grace  through  the  administration  of  her  sacraments.24  Yet 
there  is  in  the  Church  a  certain  select  body,  holy  souls,  the 
"  invisibilis  caritatis  compago,"  spiritually  as  distinct  from 
her  sinful  members  as  Catholics  are  from  heretics;  but  they 
do  not  form  a  church  by  themselves,  as  the  Donatists  affirm. 
The  two  classes  constitute  one  Church  of  Christ,  "  propter 
temporalem  commixtionem  et  communionem  sacramen- 
torum."  25 

In  matters  of  faith,  this  "  One  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Church  "  is  an  infallible  guide.  "  She  is  the  predestined  pillar 
and  groundwork  of  truth."  26  She  stands  like  a  solid  rampart 
against  all  errors;  heresies  may  indeed  originate  in  the  ranks 
of  her  children,  but  the  gates  of  hell  shall  never  prevail  against 
her.27  Such  is  the  weight  of  her  authority  that  whoso  attacks 
her  shall  be  dashed  to  pieces.28  The  source  of  this  infallibility 
is  the  permanent  assistance  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  governs  her 
through  the  Holy  Spirit.29  No  heresy  can  drag  her  away 
from  the  path  of  truth;  because  Christ,  her  Head  in  heaven, 
guides  and  directs  her  as  His  own  body.30  If  it  were  not  for 
this  indwelling  and  guidance  of  the  Lord,  she  too,  like  the 
sects,  would  lapse  into  error.31  But  now  she  is  the  -supreme 
authority  in  matters  of  faith,  and  also  the  legitimate  and 
unerring  interpreter  of  Holy  Scripture  and  tradition.32  Re 
fusal  to  acknowledge  her  as  such  is  either  the  height  of  impiety 
or  stupid  arrogance.33 

The  Primacy  over  the  universal  Church  is  held  by  the  Bishop 
of  Rome.  That  this  was  really  Augustine's  view  cannot  be 
doubted,  although  Protestants  are  usually  at  great  pains  to 
controvert  the  fact.  "  Peter/'  he  says,  "  received  the  Primacy 
over  the  other  disciples  " ; 34  "  to  him  the  Lord,  after  His 
resurrection,  confided  the  feeding  of  His  flock  " ; 35  and  it  is 
the  Roman  Church  "  in  which  the  Primacy  of  the  Apostolic 

24  De  Utilitate  Credendi,  35.  30De  Nupt  et  Concup.  I,  20,  22. 

25  De  Doctr.  Christ.  3,  45.  81  Enar.  in  Ps.  9,  12. 

26  In  Ps.  103,  17.  32De  Doctr.   Christ.  3,  27,  38. 

27  De  Symb.  ad  Catech.  Serm.  I,          33  De  Until.  Cred.  17,  35. 
14.  34  Enar.  in  Ps.   108,  I. 

28  Serm.  294,  18.  35  Contr.  Epist.  Fund.  6. 

29  Enar.  in  Ps.  56,  I. 


336    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

cathedra  has  ever  maintained  its  vigor."  36  It  was  because 
of  his  firm  belief  in  the  Primacy  of  Rome  that  Augustine  so 
readily  allowed  appeals  from  his  own  judgment  to  that  of 
the  Pope,37  and  that  he  was  so  careful  to  have  the  decisions 
of  African  synods  approved  by  Papal  rescripts. 

Nor  can  there  be  any  reasonable  doubt  that  he  also  took 
the  next  step,  and  ascribed  to  the  Pope  the  prerogative  of 
infallibility  in  matters  appertaining  to  faith  and  morals.  That 
the  universal  Church,  as  gathered  in  an  ecumenical  council, 
"  plenario  totius  orbis  concilio,"  is  divinely  preserved  from 
teaching  error,  he  states  in  so  many  words.38  He  also  states 
that  particular  synods,  whether  merely  provincial  or  national, 
as  "  plenarium  totius  Africse  concilium,"  can  justly  claim  the 
right  to  close  all  further  discussion ; 39  not,  however,  by  any 
inherent  authority  of  their  own,  but  in  so  far  as  their  decisions 
are  accepted  and  confirmed  by  the  Pope.40  That  this  state 
ment  implies  belief  in  Papal  infallibility  is  obvious.  For  it 
is  the  Pope's  confirmation  that  makes  the  decisions  of  these 
particular  synods  irreformable.  Hence  in  his  discussion  with 
Julius  of  Eclanum,  Augustine  reproaches  him  severely  with 
not  having  listened  to  Pope  Innocent,  whose  decisions  could 
not  corrupt  the  ancient  doctrine  of  the  Church.41  Further 
more,  in  matters  of  faith,  he  says,  it  is  the  duty  of  all  to 
have  recourse  to  the  Apostolic  See  and  its  pastoral  ministry; 
for  God  specially  directs  the  Pope  in  giving  his  decisions.42  It 
is  true,  the  oft  quoted  phrase :  "  Roma  locuta  est,  causa  finita 
est,"  is  not  found  verbally  in  any  writings  of  Augustine;  but 
its  equivalents  occur  again  and  again.  And  this  is  all  that 
can  be  required  to  make  him  a  staunch  supporter  of  Papal 
infallibility. 

In  connection  with  this  it  may  be  of  interest  to  note  the 
reasons  which  St.  Augustine  assigned  for  his  remaining  in  the 
universal  or  Catholic  Church.  Writing  against  the  Funda- 

36  Ep.  43,  7.  4°Ibid.;   Cont.  Duas  Ep.   Pel.  3, 

37  Ep!  209.  3,  5- 

38  Serm.  294,  21,  20;  De  Bapt.  I,          41  Cont.  Jul.  I,  4,  13. 
7,  9.  42  EP-  J76,  2. 

39  Serm.   131,   10. 


THE  DONATIST  SCHISM:    ECCLESIOLOGY 


337 


mental  Epistle  of  Mani,  he  says :  "  You  ask,  what  retains 
me  in  the  Catholic  Church?  Without  pretending  to  that  pro 
found  wisdom  and  knowledge  which  falls  to  the  lot  of  a  few, 
and  whose  existence  in  the  Catholic  Church  you  deny,  I  say 
with  the  simple  faithful,  that  many  other  things  retain  me: 
the  consent  of  peoples  and  nations;  authority  founded  in 
miracles,  nourished  by  hope,  perfected  by  charity,  confirmed  by 
antiquity;  the  succession  of  bishops  from  the  Apostle  Peter 
to  him  who  now  occupies  his  see;  in  fine  the  very  name 
Catholic,  which  the  Church  has  always  retained,  so  that  if 
in  any  country  you  ask  for  the  Catholic  Church,  not  even  one 
of  the  sectaries  will  point  to  his  conventicle.  These  bonds 
suffice  to  retain  me  in  the  Catholic  Church,  even  though  my 
dulness  of  understanding  or  imperfect  life  should  deprive  me 
of  deeper  knowledge."  43 

These  expositions  of  Augustine  and  Optatus  brought  the 
traditional  teaching  on  the  Church  and  her  powers  to  a  point 
where  it  practically  remained  during  the  Patristic  age.  Later 
Popes  continue  to  urge,  as  their  predecessors  did  before  them, 
that  in  matters  of  faith  and  universal  discipline  the  final  de 
cision  rests  with  them;  bishops  and  particular  councils  as  a 
general  rule  admit  the  validity  of  this  claim,  and  so  likewise 
do  several  general  councils;  individual  theologians  here  and 
there  emphasize  one  point  or  another  in  reference  to  the  con 
stitution  of  the  Church,  her  divine  mission  to  teach  and  save 
all  men,  and  her  title  to  the  obedience  of  high  and  low  in  all 
matters  appertaining  to  the  life  of  faith:  but  in  all  this  no 
appreciable  advance  is  made  over  what  was  firmly  established 
and  clearly  understood  by  the  end  of  the  Donatist  controversy. 
Only  after  the  birth  of  Scholasticism  was  the  work  of  develop 
ment  along  these  lines  taken  up  again,  to  be  finally  completed 
in  the  definitions  of  the  Vatican  Council. 

43  C  4,  n.  5. 


CHAPTER  XXII 

SACRAMENTAL  THEOLOGY  * 

The  second  contention  of  the  Donatists,  as  indicated  above, 
touched  the  validity  of  the  sacraments  when  conferred  outside 
their  own  sect.  Not  only  did  they  rebaptize  those  who  came 
to  them  from  any  other  communion,  but  they  laid  it  down  as  a 
fundamental  principle  that  no  one  could  administer  any  sacra 
ment  validly,  or  offer  the  Holy  Sacrifice,  except  he  were  a 
member  of  the  true  Church  of  Christ,  which,  of  course,  they 
identified  with  their  own.  In  some  respects  this  was  a  logical 
deduction  from  the  position  taken  by  St.  Cyprian  and  his 
friends  in  the  time  of  Pope  Stephen.  For  they,  too,  made  the 
sacraments  and  the  Holy  Spirit  so  exclusively  the  possession 
of  the  Church  that  outside  her  communion  neither  the  one 
nor  the  other  could  be  validly  conferred  in  the  present  economy 
of  salvation.  They  were,  however,  charitable  enough,  though 
somewhat  inconsistently,  as  to  admit  that  those  who  differed 
from  them  in  this  particular  view  might  still  belong  to  the 
Church  of  Christ.  The  Donatists  had  more  logic,  but  less 
charity. 

It  was  whilst  attacking  this  assumption  of  the  Donatists 
that  Optatus  and  Augustine  found  occasion  to  develop  some 
what  the  traditional  teaching  of  the  Church  on  the  nature  of 
the  sacraments  and  the  conditions  that  were  regarded  as  essen 
tial  for  their  valid  administration.  In  this,  again,  the  way 
had  been  prepared  for  them  by  their  predecessors  during  the 
previous  centuries,  and  to  some  extent  also  by  their  contem 
poraries  independently  of  the  controversy.  Whilst  it  is  true 
that  no  formal  theory  had  as  yet  been  worked  out  which  would 
enable  them  to  construct  an  essential  definition  applicable  to 

1  Cfr.  Pourrat,  Theology  of  the  Sacraments ;  Tixeront,  H.  D.  II,  160-191 ; 

305-424. 
338 


SACRAMENTAL  THEOLOGY  339 

all  the  sacraments,  nevertheless  the  fundamental  elements  of 
such  a  theory  were  well  known,  and  more  or  less  successfully 
applied  to  the  three  sacraments  of  Christian  initiation,  bap 
tism,  confirmation,  and  the  Holy  Eucharist.  These  elements 
are  found  in  sacramental  symbolism,  which  dates  back  to  the 
days  of  St.  Paul.  When  he  compared  baptism  to  Christ's 
burial  and  resurrection,  and  matrimony  to  the  union  of  Christ 
with  His  Church,  he  laid  down  principles  which  were  in  course 
of  time  gradually  extended  to  similar  religious  rites.  In  its 
material  sense  baptism  is  a  cleansing  of  the  body,  but  this 
material  cleansing  of  the  body  symbolizes  the  spiritual  cleans 
ing  of  the  soul;  it  represents  and  in  some  way  effects  the 
recipient's  dying  to  sin  and  his  rising  to  a  new  life,  the  life 
of  grace.  From  this  symbolism  to  the  theory  of  efficacious 
signs  of  grace  there  is  only  one  step,  and  this  step  being  taken, 
the  first  part  of  sacramental  theology  is  complete.  Augustine 
took  this  step,  and  thereby  completed  the  work  of  those  who 
had  gone  before  him. 

The  better  to  appreciate  the  great  work  thus  accomplished 
by  the  bishop  of  Hippo,  it  will  be  helpful  to  review  briefly 
what  had  already  been  done  in  the  same  field  of  theological 
inquiry  both  in  the  East  and  the  West.  A  mere  outline  will 
be  sufficient  for  our  purpose. 

In  the  East  sacramental  symbolism  received  its  first  scien 
tific  development  through  the  labors  of  the  Alexandrians,  espe 
cially  Clement  and  Origen.  Baptism  is  to  them  a  burial  and 
resurrection  with  Christ,  as  St.  Paul  had  expressed  it,  and 
as  such  it  is  a  sign  or  symbol  of  what  takes  place  in  the  soul. 
The  neophyte  on  being  submerged  in  the  baptismal  water  dies 
to  sin,  and  emerging  thence  rises  to  the  life  of  grace.  This 
is  not  effected  by  the  water  as  such,  nor  by  any  magic  charm, 
but  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Trinity  under  whose  invocation 
baptism  is  conferred.  What  God  could  do  by  a  mere  act  of 
His  will,  that  He  effects  through  the  external  rite.  This 
symbolism  falls  in  with  Origen's  definition  of  a  "  sign,"  which 
is  "  a  visible  something  that  suggests  the  idea  of  another  in 
visible  thing."  2 

2  In  Ep.  ad  Rom.  4,  2. ;  cf  r.    In  Joan.  6,  17. 


340    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

The  Holy  Eucharist,  too,  whilst  really  containing  the  body 
and  blood  of  the  Saviour,  is  a  symbol  of  the  spiritual  effects 
which  it  produces  in  the  soul.  In  this  respect  it  may  be  com 
pared  to  the  teaching  of  Christ,  which  "  nourishes  our  souls 
and  gladdens  our  hearts."  Bread  and  wine  are  bodily  nour 
ishment,  but  when  they  have  been  sanctified  by  the  prayer 
of  consecration  they  become  spiritual  food  for  those  who  par 
take  thereof  in  the  spirit  of  faith.3  "  This  is  the  suitable  food 
which  the  Lord  gives  us,  and  henceforth  nothing  is  wanting  for 
His  children's  growth."4 

For  a  while  the  application  of  this  symbolism  to  the  Euch 
arist  met  with  considerable  opposition,  owing  to  the  ambiguity 
to  which  it  gave  rise  in  reference  to  the  Real  Presence.  Igna 
tius  of  Antioch  had  already  spoken  of  the  Eucharist  as  the 
symbol  of  charity  and  of  union  in  faith,  but  Origen's  allegoriz 
ing  tendencies  caused  not  a  little  suspicion  in  regard  to  this 
matter.  Hence  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  thought  himself 
called  upon  to  enter  a  vigorous  protest.  "  Christ,"  he  writes, 
"  did  not  say,  '  This  is  a  symbol  of  my  body,  and  this  is  a 
symbol  of  my  blood/  but  He  did  say,  '  This  is  my  body  and 
this  is  my  blood/  He  teaches  us  to  draw  away  our  minds 
from  the  nature  of  the  offering,  and  to  consider  only  that  these 
gifts  are  transformed  into  His  flesh  and  blood  by  the  Eucharis- 
tic  prayer."  5  Others  were  more  or  less  of  the  same  mind, 
until  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  became  more  clearly 
understood.  Then  all  ambiguity  ceased  and  Origen's  exposi 
tion  was  readily  adopted.  Thereafter  the  appearance  of  bread 
and  the  appearance  of  wine,  as  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  ex 
pressed  it,  were  commonly  regarded  as  figures  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ,  as  symbols  containing  the  divine  reality 
which  is  given  us  as  the  spiritual  nourishment  of  our  souls.6 

The  same  symbolism  was  also  extended  by  these  writers 
to  confirmation,  which  was  then  conferred  immediately  after 
baptism,  forming  a  part  of  the  same  ceremony.  Christ  in  His 
baptism  was  anointed  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  newly 

8Orig.  In  Ep.  ad  Rom.  4,  2;  In          5  In  Matt.  26,  26. 
Matt.  9,  14;  n,  4.  6Mystag.  4,  3,  9- 

*  Clem.  Paed.  i,  6,  42,  3. 


SACRAMENTAL  THEOLOGY 


341 


baptized  Christian  is  anointed  with  chrism  in  order  that  he 
may  share  in  the  same  divine  gift.  Of  itself  the  chrism  has 
indeed  no  power  to  effect  this,  but  its  efficacy  is  derived  from 
the  Holy  Spirit  Himself  who  is  invoked  by  the  bishop.  As 
the  oil  flows  visibly  over  the  body,  the  soul  is  invisibly  sancti 
fied  by  the  life-giving  Spirit  of  God.7 

All  this,  it  is  pointed  out,  is  conformable  to  man's  nature: 
for  being  made  up  of  a  material  body  and  a  spiritual  soul, 
he  apprehends  and  understands  the  spiritual  action  of  God 
in  the  interior  o£  his  soul  more  readily  when  it  is  represented 
to  his  bodily  senses  in  a  material  form.  "If  thou  hadst  been 
incorporeal,"  writes  St.  Chrysostom,  "  Christ  would  have  given 
thee  purely  incorporeal  gifts,  but  because  the  soul  is  united 
to  a  body,  He  delivered  to  thee  what  is  intelligible  to  the  mind 
in  things  that  are  perceptible  to  the  senses."  8 

Along  with  this  almost  perfectly  developed  sacramental  sym 
bolism,  which  St.  Augustine  defined  more  accurately  in  his 
controversy  with  the  Donatists,  these  Eastern  writers  also 
brought  out  a  number  of  other  points  that  were  destined  to 
receive  a  clearer  exposition  in  the  same  controversy.  One  of 
them  is  the  impression  of  a  special  mark  or  character  on  the 
soul,  as  an  effect  of  haptism,  confirmation,  and  orders.  Even 
the  writers  of  the  sub-Apostolic  age  spoke  quite  generally  of 
baptism  as  a  sphragis  or  seal,  which  the  Christian  must  ever 
keep  inviolate.  They,  however,  did  not  enter  into  any  par 
ticulars,  so  that  it  is  not  clear  what  precisely  they  understood 
by  this  term.  But  as  used  by  the  fourth-century  theologians 
the  meaning  of  the  term  is  no  longer  doubtful.  Thus  Chrysos 
tom  says  that  the  Jews  of  old,  like  a  flock  of  sheep,  were 
marked  with  circumcision,  whereas  Christians  are  stamped 
with  the  Spirit,  as  it  behooves  the  children  of  God.9  Whilst 
baptism  is  being  administered,  the  Holy  Ghost  marks  the  souls 
with  His  own  seal.10  This  seal  is  spiritual  in  its  nature,  it  is 
beneficial  to  the  recipient,  it  is  indestructible.  It  marks  the 
soul  as  God's  own  property,  and  protects  it  against  the  attacks 
of  the  demons.  It  is  the  distinctive  mark  of  the  Christian, 

7  Ibid.  3,  i,  2,  3.  9  In  Ephes.  Horn.  2,  2. 

8  In  Matt.  Horn.  82,  2,  4.  10  Cyril,  Catech.  4,  16. 


342    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

whereby  he  is  known  as  belonging  to  the  family  of  Christ,  and 
entitled  to  the  protection  of  God's  angels.11 

A  similar  mark  is  produced  by  confirmation.  "  Whilst  the 
chrism  flows  on  the  forehead  of  the  neophyte,"  says  St.  Cyril, 
"  the  seal  of  the  communication  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  pro 
duced  in  him."  12  Hence  in  the  formula  then  used  for  the 
blessing  of  the  chrism,  the  bishop  prayed  that  all  those  who 
were  about  to  receive  the  unction  might  become  partakers  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and,  confirmed  by  His  seal,  might  remain 
immovable  and  strong  in  the  faith.13  Hence,  too,  the  sacra 
mental  formula  of  confirmation  in  use  among  the  Greeks,  which 
dates  back  to  the  fourth  century,  consists  of  the  words :  The 
seal  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.14 

When  speaking  about  the  character  impressed  by  the  sacra 
ment  of  orders,  these  authors  are  not  quite  so  clear.  Yet 
the  newly  ordained  are  referred  to  as  separated  from  the  rest 
of  the  faithful,  deputed  in  a  special  manner  to  do  the  work 
of  Christ.  They  receive  a  permanent  consecration,  somewhat 
resembling  that  of  altars  on  which  the  divine  mysteries  are 
celebrated.  This  is  especially  brought  out  by  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,  who  points  to  the  fact  that  through  the  power  of  God 
an  invisble  transformation  takes  place  in  those  who  are  or 
dained,  whereby  they  are  enabled  to  do  what  lay  beyond  the 
power  of  Moses  and  the  Prophets  to  effect.15  There  is  a  cer 
tain  vagueness  about  all  this,  but  the  fundamental  idea  of  the 
sacramental  character  is  undoubtedly  there. 

Another  point  is  that  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  is  inde 
pendent  of  the  moral  disposition  of  the  minister.  The  sacra 
ments  belong  to  Christ,  and  the  minister  cannot  frustrate  their 
effects,  unless  indeed  he  corrupts  the  sacramental  rite  itself. 
This  latter,  according  to  Athansius,  was  done  by  the  Arians 
and  some  other  heretics  who  denied  the  Trinity,  and  therefore, 
it  was  assumed,  they  could  not  rightly  perform  the  religious 
rite  of  which  the  invocation  of  the  Blessed  Trinity  formed 
an  essential  part.  The  same  view  is  taken  by  Basil  and  Cyril 

11  Id.  Protocatech.  17 ;  Catech.  i,          13  Euchol.  Scrap.  25,  2. 
3.  14  Cyril,  Catech.  18,  33. 

12  Catech.  Mystag.  4,  7.  15  In  Bapt.  Christi,  P.  G.  46,  581. 


SACRAMENTAL  THEOLOGY 


343 


of  Jerusalem,  and  hence  they  rebaptized  converts  that  came  to 
them  from  these  sects,  although  they  never  called  in  question 
the  validity  of  sacraments  conferred  by  schismatics.  The  one 
who  expressed  himself  most  clearly  on  this  matter  was  St. 
Chrysostom,  who  directed  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the  ad 
ministration  of  the  sacraments  priests  and  bishops  are  merely 
the  instruments  of  the  Saviour.  "  The  gifts  which  God  be 
stows,"  he  says,  "  are  not  such  as  to  be  the  effects  of  the 
virtue  of  the  priest ;  all  is  the  work  of  grace.  His  part  is  but 
to  open  his  mouth,  while  God  works  all :  the  priest  effects  only 
the  symbolical  sign."  16  "  When  the  priest  baptizes,  it  is  really 
not  he  who  confers  baptism,  but  it  is  God  whose  invisible 
power  bestows  the  grace  of  regeneration."  17 

Similar  views  concerning  these  various  points  prevailed  in 
the  West  before  the  matter  was  brought  to  an  issue  in  the 
Donatist  controversy.  Sacramental  symbolism  was  already 
adverted  to  by  Tertullian,  although  his  extremely  realistic 
views  did  on  the  whole  not  favor  the  development  of  the  theory. 
Baptismal  immersion  is  a  bodily  act,  but  it  benefits  the  soul 
in  a  spiritual  way;  and  the  anointing  with  oil  is  a  bodily  act, 
but  it  spiritually  benefits  the  soul.  Cyprian  uses  almost  the 
same  language  in  regard  to  baptism,  but  is  more  explicit  when 
he  comes  to  speak  of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  The  many  grains  of 
wheat  which  form  but  one  bread,  and  the  mixture  of  wine 
and  water  blessed  in  one  chalice,  typify  the  union  which  is 
effected  by  the  Eucharist  between  Christ  and  His  people.  The 
Saviour's  body  and  blood  are  really  present,  and  their  recep 
tion  in  holy  communion  fosters  the  life  of  faith  and  charity 
of  which  the  Eucharist  is  the  symbol.18 

These  ideas  were  set  forth  in  much  greater  detail  by  St. 
Ambrose.  He  distinguishes  clearly  between  the  external  rite 
that  falls  under  the  perception  of  the  senses  and  the  interior 
effects  that  can  be  known  by  faith  alone.  Yet  even  these  in 
visible  effects  are  in  a  manner  made  tangible  by  the  external 
rite.  The  immersion  of  the  neophyte  in  the  baptismal  font 
typifies  his  death  to  sin ;  the  unction  of  the  newly  baptized  with 

16  Ep.  II  ad  Tim.  Horn.  2,  4.  18  Ep.  63,  17. 

17  In  Matt.  50,  3. 


344    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

oil  symbolizes  the  unction  of  his  soul  with  the  Holy  Spirit; 
the  appearances  of  bread  and  wine  in  the  Holy  Eucharist 
contain  and  signify  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Saviour,  which 
the  faithful  receive  as  the  nourishment  of  their  souls.19 

As  regards  the  sacramental  character  the  Latin  writers  of 
this  period  are,  as  a  general  rule,  not  quite  as  explicit  as  their 
Eastern  contemporaries.  Tertullian  had  already  represented 
baptism  as  a  covenant  between  God  and  the  Christian,  which 
he  conceived  to  be  confirmed  by  a  seal.  If  the  Christian 
proves  unfaithful  to  this  covenant,  the  seal  still  remains.20 
This  idea  was  taken  up  by  subsequent  writers,  and  gradually 
also  extended  to  confirmation  and  orders.  After  baptism, 
says  St.  Cyprian,  neophytes  receive  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the 
imposition  of  the  bishop's  hands,  that  thus  their  initiation 
may  be  perfected  by  the  signaculum  of  the  Lord.21  This  is 
somewhat  further  developed  by  St.  Ambrose,  who  says  that 
our  souls  are  marked  by  the  Holy  Spirit  with  a  spiritual  sign, 
so  that  we  may  preserve  undimmed  the  brightness  of  His 
image  and  the  grace  which  He  has  bestowed.  "  And  this  in 
deed  is  a  spiritual  seal."  M  In  its  fundamental  concepts  this 
teaching  is  obviously  identical  with  that  of  the  Eastern  writers, 
but  it  is  less  developed  as  regards  details. 

About  the  other  point  above  referred  to,  the  independence 
of  sacramental  efficacy  in  respect  to  the  moral  disposition  of 
the  minister,  there  was  in  the  beginning  of  this  period  some 
disagreement,  as  is  evident  from  the  baptismal  controversy. 
When  Cyprian  asserted  that  no  one  not  in  communion  with 
the  Church  could  administer  the  sacraments  validly,  he  sup 
posed  not  only  that  the  sacraments  belonged  exclusively  to  the 
Church,  but  also  that  the  bestowal  of  the  Holy  Spirit  through 
the  sacramental  rite  was  dependent  on  the  sanctity  of  the  min 
ister.  "  But  who/'  he  asks,  "  can  give  what  he  himself  does 
not  have,  or  how  can  any  one  who  has  lost  the  Holy  Spirit 
perform  these  spiritual  rites?"23  Hence  in  his  view,  and 

19  De   Spir.   Sanct.   I,  83,   77;    I,          21  Ep.  73,  9. 
76 ;  De  Myst.  50,  52,  54.  22  De  Spir.  Sanct  I,  6. 

2°  De  Spect.  24.  23  £p.  70. 


SACRAMENTAL  THEOLOGY  345 

that  of  his  followers  as  well,  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  de 
pends  at  least  partly  on  the  disposition  of  the  minister. 

Pope  Stephen  at  the  time  took  the  opposite  view,  which,  he 
contended,  was  handed  down  by  the  Apostles.  "  Whoever  has 
been  baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ  receives  forthwith  the 
grace  of  Christ."  Although  this  is  a  rather  sweeping  state 
ment,  yet,  presupposing  the  proper  disposition  of  the  recipient, 
it  is  perfectly  true,  and,  at  all  events,  it  firmly  established  the 
principle  that  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  is  independent  of 
the  minister's  faith  and  sanctity.  This  was  still  further  de 
veloped  by  the  unknown  author  of  the  treatise  entitled  De 
Rebaptismate,  who  wrote  about  the  same  time.  He  clearly 
distinguishes  between  the  validity  of  the  sacramental  rite  and 
its  spiritual  fruitfulness.  The  former  may  be  had  without 
the  latter,  and  therefore  when  heretical  and  unworthy  ministers 
confer  the  sacraments,  the  sacramental  rite  is  valid,  but  the 
spiritual  effects  are  not  produced  in  the  recipient  until  he  is 
reconciled  to  the  Church.24  This  latter  distinction  was  more 
or  less  lost  sight  of  by  subsequent  writers  until  the  time  of  St. 
Augustine,  but  in  some  way  all  assumed  that  the  minister's 
unworthiness  did  not  interfere  with  the  effects  of  the  sacra 
ments,  if  nothing  else  intervened  to  invalidate  the  sacramental 
rite. 

These,  then,  were  the  general  views  entertained  at  the 
time  when  the  Donatist  controversy  brought  the  subject  of 
sacramental  efficacy  into  the  foreground  of  theological  discus 
sion.  Obviously  the  ground  was  well  prepared,  and  in  many 
instances  Augustine  needed  do  no  more  than  explain  in  detail 
what  his  predecessors  had  already  accepted  as  the  common 
teaching.  This,  however,  did  not  prevent  him  from  clarifying 
certain  obscure  concepts  and  emphasizing  a  number  of  points 
that  had  been  more  or  less  overlooked  before  the  controversy 
was  started.  It  was  chiefly  in  this  that  his  labors  were  so 
fruitful. 

In  this  connection  but  little  need  be  said  of  the  work  of 
Optatus.  He  indeed  valiantly  defended  the  Catholic  position 
against  the  Donatists,  but  in  doing  so  he  rarely  went  beyond 

24  De  Rebapt  2,  3,  4,  6,  11,  15;   cfr.  Cone.  Arelat,  314. 


346    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

what  was  clearly  contained  in  the  common  teaching  at  the 
time.  When  the  Donatists  brought  forward  their  chief  dif 
ficulty,  "  Qui  non  habet  quod  det,  quomodo  dat?  "  if  a  person 
do  not  have  what  he  may  give,  how  does  he  give  ?  he  explained 
that  in  baptism,  about  which  the  difficulty  chiefly  turned,  three 
things  are  to  be  considered  :  First,  the  Trinitarian  formula  ; 
secondly,  the  recipient  of  the  sacrament  ;  thirdly,  the  minister. 
The  invocation  of  the  Trinity  is  absolutely  necessary  :  the  faith 
of  the  person  who  receives  the  sacrament  is  also  necessary; 
but  the  proper  disposition  of  the  minister  is  necessary  only  in 
a  secondary  way.  The  first  two  enter  in  some  manner  into 
the  sacrament  itself,  and  are  therefore  unchangeable;  the  third 
is  extrinsic  to  the  sacrament,  and  in  consequence  is  not  abso 
lutely  necessary.25  And  the  ultimate  reason  is  this,  that  the 
minister  is  merely  an  instrument  of  Christ,  who  Himself  is 
the  chief  minister  of  baptism.  It  is  God  who  cleanses  through 
the  sacrament,  and  not  man.  It  is  He  who  gives,  and  it  is 
His  that  is  given.  The  recipient,  indeed,  must  have  faith; 
for  it  is  because  of  this  faith  that  God  bestows  His  gifts:  but 
the  minister's  faith  does  not  determine  the  action  of  God.  Let 
therefore  the  Donatists  allow  God  to  do  His  own  work.  For 
it  is  not  man  who  bestows  things  divine.  It  has  been  promised 
to  our  times  that  Christ  Himself  would  give  what  is  given 
to-day.  He  indeed  baptized,  but  by  the  hands  of  His  Apostles, 
to  whom  He  had  given  the  law  of  baptism.  In  this  matter 
we  are  all  His  disciples,  so  that  we  act  in  such  wise  that  he 
Himself  gives  what  He  promised  He  would  give.26 

These  points  were  sufficient  to  refute  the  main  contention  of 
the  Donatists,  and  with  this  Optatus  was  satisfied.  Hence  it 
was  left  to  Augustine,  who  took  up  the  work  begun  by  Optatus, 
to  develop  the  Church's  traditional  teaching  on  the  sacraments 
as  the  ever  changing  phases  of  the  controversy  required. 
This  he  did  on  many  different  occasions,  now  explaining  and 
emphasizing  one  point  of  Catholic  teaching  now  another,  but 
for  clearness'  sake  his  scattered  remarks  may  be  reduced  to  a 
connected  system  of  doctrine,  of  which  the  following  is  a  brief 
outline  : 


25  Cont.  Parmen.  VII,  4.  26  IWd-  V,  4  ;  V,  6,  7. 


SACRAMENTAL  THEOLOGY 


347 


By  way  of  general  definition  he  states  that  sacraments  are 
external  signs  of  a  sacred  reality :  "  When  signs  appertain 
to  things  divine,  they  are  called  sacraments."  2T  This,  of 
course,  is  a  very  wide  definition,  and  is  readily  applied  to  all 
sacred  rites.  Of  this  the  author  is  perfectly  aware  and  he 
frequently  applies  the  term  to  the  various  ceremonies  accom 
panying  baptism  and  to  other  religious  observances.28  But  a 
sign  may  either  simply  indicate  a  spiritual  reality,  or  it  may 
also  concur  in  its  production;  when  this  latter  is  the  case  we 
have  a  sacrament  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word.  In  this  re 
stricted  sense  the  term  is  applied  by  the  author  especially  to 
baptism,  confirmation,  and  the  Holy  Eucharist;  and  incident 
ally  also  to  holy  orders.29  Matrimony  he  likewise  calls  a 
sacrament,  but  whether  in  precisely  the  same  sense  is  not  so 
clear.30 

In  every  sacrament  there  are  two  elements  to  be  considered : 
one  that  is  sensible  and  signifies,  the  other  that  is  spiritual  and 
is  signified.  "  They  are  called  sacraments  for  this  reason,  that 
one  thing  is  seen  in  them  and  another  is  understood."  31  The 
sensible  element  is  itself  made  up  of  different  parts,  usually 
the  elementum  and  the  verbum.  Thus  in  baptism  the  water 
is  the  elementum,  the  consecratory  prayer  and  the  invocation 
of  the  Trinity  is  the  verbum.  The  two  together  make  up  the 
sacrament  as  distinguished  from  the  effects  which  it  produces. 
"  Accedit  verbum  ad  elementum  et  fit  sacramentum,  etiam 
ipsum  tamquam  visible  verbum."  32  But  "  the  sacrament  is 
one  thing  and  the  power  (or  the  effect)  of  the  sacrament  is 
another";33  the  two  are  quite  distinct.  Hence  by  the  sacra 
ment  the  author  understands  the  whole  external  rite,  and  by 
the  power  of  the  sacrament  the  effects  produced  in  the  soul. 

The  bond  between  the  sacrament  and  its  effects  is  in  some 
way  indicated  by  the  nature  of  the  sacramental  sign,  so  that, 
although  Christ  has  assigned  a  spiritual  meaning  to  these  ex 
ternal  rites,  they  are  also  of  their  very  nature  adapted  to  con- 

27  Ep.  138,  7.  80  Ibid.  32. 

28  De  Catech.  Rud.  50.  31  In  Joan.  Tract.  80,  3;  26,  11. 

29  De   Bapt.    5,   28;    Cont.  Faust.          82  In  Joan.  Tract.  2,  4. 
19,  19;  De  Bono  Conj.  32.  83Ibid.  26,  n. 


348    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

vey  this  meaning.  "  For  if  the  sacraments  did  not  have  some 
likeness  to  the  things  of  which  they  are  sacraments,  they 
would  not  be  sacraments  at  all."  34  Hence  they  are  at  the 
same  time  both  natural  and  conventional  signs.  Of  course, 
their  power  to  produce  the  spiritual  effect  in  the  soul  is  not 
owing  to  the  material  element  in  itself;  that  comes  from  the 
consecratory  prayer  and  from  the  sacramental  form. 
"  Whence  does  the  water  have  such  power  that  it  should  touch 
the  body  and  cleanse  the  heart,  if  not  because  of  the  word?  "  35 
It  is  the  power  of  Christ  Himself  acting  through  the  conse 
crated  water. 

Hence  the  sacraments  have  Christ  for  their  author,  since 
the  efficacy  of  the  external  rite  is  derived  from  Him.  Augus 
tine  asserts  this  explicitly  only  of  baptism  and  the  Holy  Eucha 
rist,  but  his  concept  of  sacramental  efficacy  makes  it  evident 
that  he  means  to  extend  it  to  all  true  sacraments.  And  this 
he  also  indicates  with  sufficient  clearness;  for  when  he  says 
of  baptism  and  the  Holy  Eucharist  that  they  flowed  from 
the  side  of  Christ,  he  immediately  adds,  "  et  si  quid  aliud 
in  Scripturis  canonicis  commendatur." 36  Their  power  to 
sanctify  is  derived  from  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  these  merits 
He  applies  to  His  followers  according  to  His  own  wise  dis 
position. 

The  Old  Law  also  had  its  sacraments,  among  which  cir 
cumcision  held  the  same  relative  place  as  baptism  does  in  the 
New  Law;  but  their  chief  purpose  was  to  announce  the  future 
coming  of  Christ,  whereas  the  sacraments  of  the  New  Law 
bestow  upon  the  recipient  the  fruits  of  the  redemption  and 
bind  the  followers  of  the  Saviour  closely  together  in  a  reli 
gious  community.  Hence  they  are  "  virtute  majora,  utilitate 
meliora,  actu  faciliora,  numero  pauciora."  37 

In  the  administration  of  the  sacraments  the  author  clearly 
distinguishes  the  validity  of  the  sacramental  rite  from  its  fruit 
ful  reception.  When  a  person  is  baptized  in  heresy  he  re 
ceives  the  sacrament  validly,  but  on  account  of  a  supposed  want 
of  proper  disposition  he  is  not  thereby  sanctified.  "  For  it  is 

34  Serm.  98,  9.  36  Ep.  54,  i. 

85  In  Joan,  tract.  80,  3.  37  Cont.  Faust.   19,  13- 


SACRAMENTAL  THEOLOGY 


349 


one  thing  to  have  the  sacrament,  and  another  to  have  it  use 
fully,"  that  is,  to  receive  its  proper  effects.38  It  was  for  want 
of  this  distinction,  he  says,  that  Cyprian  fell  into  error  con 
cerning  rebaptism :  "  Non  distinguebatur  sacramentum  ab 
effectu  vel  usu  sacramenti."  39 

If  the  sacraments  are  conferred  in  the  Catholic  Church, 
although  by  an  unworthy  minister,  they  are  not  only  valid,  but 
also  produce  their  intended  effect.  And  the  reason  is  that 
man's  action  in  this  matter  is  purely  ministerial :  "  Non  eorum 
meritis  a  quibus  ministratur,  nee  eorum  quibus  ministratur, 
baptismus  constat,  sed  propria  sanctitate  atque  veritate  propter 
eum  a  quo  institutus  est,  bene  utentibus  ad  salutem."  40  It  is 
their  own  sanctity  and  truth,  derived  from  the  Saviour  who 
instituted  them,  that  makes  the  sacraments  a  source  of  salva 
tion  to  those  who  receive  them  worthily.  Hence  they  produce 
their  effect  ex  op  ere  operate;  for  although,  according  to  the 
author,  it  is  Christ  who  sanctifies  the  recipient,  nevertheless 
He  does  so  through  the  sacramental  rite.  "  Propria  sanctitate 
atque  veritate  propter  eum  a  quo  institutus  est  (baptismus), 
bene  untentibus  ad  salutem." 

And  as  the  sacraments  do  not  depend  for  their  salutary 
effects  on  the  moral  disposition  of  the  minister,  so  neither 
do  they  depend  on  the  merits  of  the  recipient ;  but  in  this  latter 
they  presuppose  certain  dispositions  as  a  conditio  sine  qua  non 
of  their  fruitful  reception.  What  these  necessary  dispositions 
are  the  author  does  not  state  in  detail,  but  in  adults  they  cer 
tainly  include  faith.  For  when  pointing  out  that  baptism  is 
productive  of  grace  in  children  as  well  as  in  adults,  he  reasons 
that  in  their  case  the  absence  of  actual  faith  is  no  obstacle  to 
the  infusion  of  grace;  hence  the  necessary  inference  is  that 
in  adults  the  want  of  faith  would  be  an  obstacle.41  And  what 
is  true  of  baptism  in  this  respect  is  also  true  of  other  sacra 
ments.  Then  there  is  need  of  some  kind  of  intention  on  the 
part  of  recipients  who  have  arrived  at  the  age  of  reason;  but 
on  this  point  the  author  is  rather  liberal  in  his  views,  declining 

38  De  Bapt.  7,  102.  40  Cont.  Cresc.  4,  19. 

39  Ibid.  41  Ep.  98,  10. 


350         FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

even  to  hold  as  certainly  invalid  a  baptism  that  is  received 
"  totus  ludicre  et  mimice  et  joculariter." 42  In  cases  of 
emergency  the  intention  of  the  subject  may  be  presumed;  for 
"  multo  satius  est  nolenti  dare  quam  volenti  negare."  43 

Three  sacraments,  namely,  baptism,  confirmation,  and  holy 
orders,  imprint  a  character  on  the  soul.  This  character  is 
compared  by  the  author  to  the  image  on  imperial  coins,  to  the 
nota  militaris  of  soldiers,  and  to  the  brand  wherewith  sheep  are 
marked.  He  conceives  it  to  consist  in  a  permanent  consecra 
tion  which  cannot  be  lost,  and  therefore  these  sacraments  can 
not  be  repeated.  Speaking  of  baptism  and  orders,  he  says: 
"  Utrumque  enim  sacramentum  est,  et  quadam  consecratione 
homini  datum ;  illud  cum  baptizatur,  istud  cum  ordinatur ;  ide- 
oque  in  Catholica  Ecclesia  utrumque  non  licet  iterari."  44  And 
in  another  place  he  affirms  the  same  of  confirmation.45  The 
soldier  of  Christ  may  become  a  deserter,  but  the  badge  of  his 
enrollment  always  remains. 

This  brief  outline  of  St.  Augustine's  teaching  on  the  sacra 
ments  in  general  will  be  sufficient  to  indicate  how  much  he 
contributed  to  the  development  of  sacramental  theology.  He 
brought  it  to  a  point  of  perfection  where  it  remained  till  the 
beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century.  It  was  only  then  that 
his  definition  was  perfected,  and  the  causality  of  the  sacra 
ments  more  accurately  determined.  It  is  true,  Augustine  did 
not  give  expression  to  any  definite  view  in  regard  to  the  exact 
number  of  sacraments,  but  neither  was  there  any  particular 
reason  for  investigating  the  subject  carefully  in  his  time.  He 
mentions  all  the  religious  rites  which  we  now  regard  as  sacra 
ments  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  and  also  shows  that  he 
was  acquainted  with  their  salutary  effects.  Beyond  this  he 
had  no  occasion  to  go,  as  the  controversy  which  called  forth 
his  exposition  did  not  touch  all  the  sacraments  in  particular. 
In  our  times,  indeed,  much  emphasis  is  placed  upon  the  fact 
that  the  sacraments  are  neither  more  nor  less  than  seven ;  but 
that  is  owing  to  the  denial  of  this  truth  by  heretics.  In  Augus- 

4(2  De  Bapt.  7,  102.  45  Cont.  Litt.  Petil.  2,  239 ;  Serm. 

43  De  Conjug.  Adult.  I,  33.  ad  Pleb.  Caesar.  2. 

44  Cont.  Ep.  Parmen.  2,  28. 


SACRAMENTAL  THEOLOGY 


351 


tine's  time  the  truth  regarding  this  point  was  not  called  in 
question.  Though  sacramental  terminology  was  still  rather 
indefinite,  nevertheless  the  seven  religious  rites  which  we  now 
defend  as  true  sacraments,  were  even  then  looked  upon  as  in  a 
class  all  by  themselves;  so  much  so  that  even  those  heretical 
sects  which  in  the  fifth  century  separated  from  the  Church 
kept  them  all  as  belonging  essentially  to  the  religion  of  Christ. 

By  way  of  completing  the  foregoing  summary,  a  few  re 
marks  must  be  made  with  regard  to  some  of  the  sacraments 
in  particular,  as  in  reference  to  them  there  occur  in  the  writings 
of  the  fourth-century  Fathers  several  points  that  are  of  con 
siderable  importance.  In  this  matter,  however,  no  distinction 
need  be  made  between  Eastern  and  Western  writers,  nor  be 
tween  Augustine  and  his  predecessors,  as  the  points  in  ques 
tion  are  treated  by  all  of  them  in  practically  the  same  way. 

i°.  Baptism  of  water,  although  ordinarily  necessary  for 
salvation,  may  be  supplied  by  martyrdom,  and  under  certain 
conditions  also  by  the  baptism  of  desire.  The  former  was 
universally  admitted,  but  the  latter  was  apparently  denied  by 
Chrysostom  and  Cyril  of  Jerusalem.46  Baptism  must  be  con 
ferred  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost;  however,  Basil  and  Ambrose  seem  to  have  held 
that  baptism  in  the  name  of  Jesus  alone  would  be  sufficient.47 
Grace  is  bestowed  on  little  children  as  well  as  on  adults.48 

2°.  Forgiveness  can  be  obtained  for  all  sins  committed  after 
baptism,  but  if  they  are  grievous  they  must  be  confessed.  Pub 
lic  penance,  enjoined  for  the  "  crimina  graviora,"  appears  to 
have  been  conceded  only  once  in  a  life-time.49  Occasionally 
reconciliation  was  deferred  till  the  hour  of  death.  In  some 
places  the  practice  had  crept  in  of  denying  final  reconciliation 
to  those  who  had  put  off  doing  penance,  a  practice  that  was 
severely  condemned  by  Celestine  I.50  Ambrose,  Pacian, 
Augustine,  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa  made  some  attempt  at  classi 
fying  sins  according  to  their  gravity  and  in  reference  to  the 

46Chrysost.    In    Ep.    ad    Philipp.  42. 
Horn.  3,  4;  Cyril,  Catech,  3,  4.  48  August.  Ep.  166,  7,  21. 

47  Basil,    De    Spirit.    Sancto,    28 ;          49  Ambrose,  De  Poenit.  2,  10.  95. 
Ambrose,  De   Spirit.   Sancto,   i,  3,          50  Ep.  4;  P.  L.  50,  431. 


352 


FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 


necessity  of  confessing  them,  but  they  are  not  very  clear  on 
the  point.  The  power  of  the  keys  was  admitted  by  all,  though 
hardly  any  of  them  go  into  particulars  with  regard  to  its 


51 


use. 

3°.  The  real  presence  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  in  the 
Holy  Eucharist  is  universally  taught,  and  on  occasions  strongly 
emphasized.  Some  difficulty  has  been  raised  with  regard  to 
St.  Augustine's  view  on  this  point,  but  his  belief  in  the  Real 
Presence  cannot  justly  be  called  in  question.  He  insists  indeed 
strongly  on  the  spiritual  aspect  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  but 
he  does  so  without  rejecting  the  Church's  traditional  teaching 
on  the  Real  Presence.  Hence  there  are  found  in  his  works 
two  series  of  texts,  the  one  setting  forth  the  common  teaching 
that  the  Eucharist  contains  the  real  body  and  blood  of  the 
Saviour,52  that  the  Eucharistic  Lord  must  be  adored  before 
being  received  by  the  faithful,53  and  that  the  Real  Presence  is 
effected  by  the  conversion  of  the  bread  and  the  wine  into 


51  That  the  Church  has  the  power 
to  forgive  sins,  is  thus  neatly  shown 
by  Ambrose.  Arguing  against  the 
Novatians,  who  excluded  certain 
sins  from  the  exercise  of  this  power, 
he  says :  "  Why  do  you  baptize,  if 
it  be  not  lawful  to  obtain  forgive 
ness  through  the  ministry  of  man? 
In  baptism  assuredly  forgiveness  is 
obtained  for  all  sins;  but  what  is 
the  difference  whether  priests  ex 
ercise  this  power,  which  they  claim 
was  given  them,  through  penance 
or  through  baptism?  It  is  the  same 
mystery  in  both"  (De  Poenit.  i,  8, 
36).  Again:  "It  is  most  evident 
that  the  Lord  enjoined  to  extend 
the  grace  of  this  heavenly  sacra 
ment  also  to  those  who  are  guilty 
of  the  most  heinous  crimes,  if  they 
do  penance  for  them  from  their 
whole  heart  and  manifest  them  in 
confession"  (Ibid.  2,  3,  19). 

Augustine  speaks  in  almost  the 
same  terms.  Thus  in  one  of  his 
sermons  he  says :  "  If,  then,  after 
baptism  anyone  find  himself  en 


tangled  in  his  old  sins,  let  him  not 
be  so  far  his  own  enemy  as  to 
hesitate  to  change  his  life,  and, 
while  he  has  yet  time,  to  have  re 
course  to  the  keys  of  the  Church, 
by  which  he  shall  be  loosed  on  earth 
that  he  may  be  loosed  in  heaven. 
Let  him  come  to  the  prelates  by 
whom  the  keys  are  administered 
in  the  Church,  and  receive  from  the 
ministers  of  the  sacraments  the  due 
measure  of  satisfaction.  And  if  his 
sin  was  not  only  an  injury  to  him 
self  but  also  a  scandal  to  others, 
and  such  that  the  bishop  should 
think  it  useful  to  the  Church  that 
he  should  do  penance,  not  only 
before  many,  but  even  before  all 
the  people,  let  him  not  refuse  nor 
add  to  his  mortal  wound  the  tumor 
of  pride.  .  .  .  The  keys  of  the 
Church  are  surer  than  the  hearts 
of  princes :  for  by  these  keys,  what 
ever  is  loosed  on  earth  shall  be 
loosed  in  heaven  "  (Serm.  351). 

52  Serm.  I,  10. 

53  Enar.  in  Ps.  98,  9. 


SACRAMENTAL  THEOLOGY  353 

the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ; 54  whilst  the  other  series,  pre 
supposing  all  this,  points  out  that  the  eating  of  Christ's  body 
and  the  drinking  of  His  blood  consist  in  sharing  the  Saviour's 
passion,55  in  being  united  with  Him  through  faith,56  and  in 
becoming  more  intimately  incorporated  into  His  mystical  body 
the  Church,  of  which  He  is  the  Head.57  Obviously,  if  we 
had  only  this  latter  series  of  texts  we  should  look  upon  Augus 
tine  as  teaching  Eucharistic  symbolism  pure  and  simple;  but  if 
these  same  texts  be  read  in  the  light  thrown  upon  them  by  the 
former  series,  they  are  found  to  emphasize  one  aspect  of  the 
Eucharist  without  in  any  way  denying  the  other.  And  hence 
it  was  that  Augustine's  disciples  and  admirers  in  the  fifth  and 
sixth  centuries  not  only  taught  the  Real  Presence,  but  they  did 
so  without  being  in  the  least  influenced  by  his  supposed  purely 
symbolistic  conceptions.  It  was  only  during  the  early  part 
of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  again  in  the  sixteenth  century,  that 
Augustine's  authority  was  invoked  by  the  opponents  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence. 

The  same  authors  who  thus  one  and  all  teach  the  real  pres 
ence  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  also 
bring  out  with  great  distinctness  the  doctrine  of  Transubstan- 
tiation.  It  is  true,  the  term  itself  is  of  later  origin,  but  its 
significance  is  clearly  contained  in  the  works  of  these  writers. 
Almost  every  possible  expression  is  used  by  them  to  emphasize 
the  change  wrought  by  the  Eucharistic  prayer.  The  bread  and 
wine  are  said  to  be  transformed,  changed,  converted,  so 
that  the  bread  is  no  longer  bread  but  the  body  of  Christ,  and 
the  wine  is  no  longer  wine  but  the  blood  of  the  Saviour. 
"  Once  in  Cana  of  Galilee,"  writes  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  "  Jesus 
changed  water  into  wine,  which  is  akin  to  blood ;  and  we  would 
not  believe  Him  when  He  changes  wine  into  blood  ? " 58 
"  Rightly  do  we  believe,"  argues  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  "  that  the 
bread  which  is  sanctified  by  the  word  of  God  is  converted  into 
the  body  of  God  the  Word."  59  St.  Ambrose,  answering  an 
objection  brought  forward  against  the  Eucharistic  change, 

54  De  Trinit.  3,  4,  5.  B7  Ibid.    15. 

55  De  Doctr.  Christ.  3,  16.  58  Catech.  4,  i. 

56  In  Joan.  27,  5.  B9  Orat  Catech.  37. 


354    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

points  to  the  omnipotence  of  God  as  its  all-sufficient  cause. 
In  the  creation  of  the  world  and  the  beings  contained  therein, 
he  says,  "  He  spoke  and  they  were  made,  He  commanded  and 
they  were  created :  if  then  the  word  of  Christ  could  make  out 
of  nothing  the  things  that  were  not,  how  should  it  not  be  able 
to  change  the  things  that  are  into  what  they  were  not "  before 
the  same  word  was  spoken  ?  60  And  even  Augustine  calls  at 
tention  to  the  fact  that  the  conversion  of  the  bread  and  wine, 
which  is  daily  wrought  on  our  altars,  is  a  far  greater  miracle 
than  any  of  those  recorded  in  the  Bible.61  These  authors  do 
indeed  not  theorize  about  the  intimate  nature  of  the  Eucha- 
ristic  change,  but  they  are  quite  certain  of  the  fact. 

Furthermore,  they  are  all  agreed  that  this  change  is  wrought 
in  virtue  of  the  Eucharistic  prayer;  but  on  the  further  ques 
tion,  to  what  particular  words  of  that  prayer  the  change  must 
be  attributed,  their  agreement  is  apparently  not  so  complete. 
Whilst  the  Western  writers  usually  regard  the  words  of  insti 
tution  as  effecting  the  change,  their  Eastern  contemporaries, 
with  the  exception  of  John  Chrysostom,  seem  to  look  upon  the 
epiclesis,  or  subsequent  invocation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  more 
or  less  essential.  This  is  strongly  brought  out  by  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem,  when  he  writes :  "  After  we  have  sanctified  our 
selves,  we  beseech  the  good  God  to  send  His  Holy  Spirit  upon 
the  elements  that  are  offered,  that  He  may  make  of  the  bread 
the  body  of  Christ,  and  of  the  wine  His  blood;  for  whatever 
the  Holy  Spirit  touches  is  thoroughly  blessed  and  trans 
formed."  62  In  course  of  time,  especially  through  the  influence 
of  John  Damascene,  the  Eastern  Church  officially  adopted  this 
view ;  whereas  the  West  always  maintained  the  more  common 
traditional  teaching,  and  finally  all  discussion  concerning  the 
point  at  issue  was  closed  by  an  authoritative  declaration  that 
the  words  of  institution  alone  are  essential. 

All  these  writers  also  strongly  emphasize  the  sacrificial  char 
acter  of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  In  it  is  offered  to  God  a  living, 
spotless,  unbloody,  and  perfect  sacrifice,  which  is  a  commemo 
ration  and  in  some  manner  a  continuation  of  the  great  sacrifice 

«°De  Myst.  8;  g.  62  Catech.  4,  i. 

«i  De  Trinit.  3,  4,  5- 


SACRAMENTAL  THEOLOGY  355 

of  the  Cross.  It  is  offered  both  for  the  living  and  the  dead.63 
4°.  Extreme  unction  is  referred  to  in  the  Euchologium  of 
Serapion,  where  a  prayer  is  given  for  the  consecration  of  the 
"  oleum  aegrotorum  " ;  and  Innocent  I  speaks  of  it  as  a  "  genus 
sacramenti,"  that  is  in  common  use  among  the  faithful.64 
Similarly  Augustine,  who,  in  the  Speculum,  which  he  wrote 
to  place  before  the  faithful  their  ordinary  duties,  exhorts  his 
people  in  the  words  of  St.  James,  that  "  if  anyone  is  sick 
among  them  they  ought  to  bring  in  the  priests  of  the  Church, 
to  pray  over  the  sick,  anointing  him  with  oil  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord,  etc." 65  In  reference  to  this  exhortation,  his 
biographer,  Posidius,  tells  us  that  "  if  Augustine  happened  to 
be  called  to  the  sick,  for  the  purpose  of  praying  to  the  Lord 
for  them  and  imposing  hands  on  them,  he  went  without  de 
lay."  66 

5°.  Holy  orders  were  then  as  now  divided  into  major  and 
minor;  that  is,  in  so  far  as  a  sharp  distinction  was  made 
between  the  higher  and  lower  degrees  of  the  ecclesiastical 
hierarchy.  How  the  minor  orders  were  conferred  is  no 
where  stated  in  the  writings  of  the  fourth-century  Fathers, 
but  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  were  ordained  by  imposition 
of  hands  and  an  appropriate  prayer.  The  superiority  of 
bishops  over  priests  and  of  priests  over  deacons  was  commonly 
admitted  to  be  de  jure  divino,  although  Jerome  states  in  one 
place  that  bishops  are  superior  to  ordinary  priests  "  magis 
consuetudine  quam  dispositionis  dominicae  veritate."  67  But 
in  this  view  he  had  no  followers. 

6°.  Marriage  was  by  all  looked  upon  as  a  sacred  rite:  the 
nuptial  blessing  was  given  to  the  bride,  except  in  the  case  of 
a  widow.  Several  diriment  impediments  were  recognized.68 
With  the  exception  of  Ambrosiaster,  the  Latin  writers  regard 
the  marriage  bond  as  indissoluble,  even  in  the  case  of  adul 
tery;69  but  several  of  the  Greeks,  among  them  Gregory  of 

63  Didym.  De  Trinit.  2,  7 ;  Chry-          6e  C.  27. 

sost.  In  Ep.  ad  Hebr.  17,  3 ;  Am-         «7  Ep.  146 ;  In  Ep.  ad  Tit.  2,  15. 
brose,  In  Ps.  38,  25 ;  Jerome,  Ep.  94,          68  Basil,  Ep.  199,  23,  42 ;  217,  78. 
2.  69  Ambrose,    In    Luc.    8,    5,    2; 

64  Ep.  ad  Decent,  ii.  Jerome,    Ep.    55,    3;    August.    De 
6§Op.  cit.  27.  Adult  Conj.  i,  g. 


356    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

Nazianzus,  Chrysostom,  and  Basil,  make  statements  from 
which  the  contrary  doctrine  has  been  inferred.70  However, 
as  these  authors  in  other  places  stand  up  strongly  for  the 
indissolubility  of  the  marriage  bond,  it  is  more  probable  that 
in  the  statements  referred  to  they  simply  bear  witness  to  a 
custom  introduced  by  the  civil  law.71 

70Naz.  Orat.  37,  8;  Chrysost.  In  71  Naz.  Orat.  37,  6;  Chrysost.  De 
Ep.  I  ad  Cor.  Horn.  19,  3 ;  Basil,  Libel.  Repud.  i,  2 ;  Basil,  Reg.  73,  2. 
Ep.  199,  9;  299,  21. 


CHAPTER  XXIII 

PELAGIANISM  AND  THE  QUESTION  OF  ORIGINAL  SIN1 

Pelagius  was  a  British  monk,  whom  Augustine  calls  a 
"  bonum  et  praedicandum  virum,"  but  whose  renown  was 
destined  to  be  changed  into  notoriety.  His  first  great  mistake 
was  that  he  insisted  too  much  upon  the  invincible  power  of 
the  human  free  will  to  resist  evil.  This  led  him  by  degrees 
into  various  errors  concerning  man's  primitive  condition,  his 
present  state,  and  the  part  which  divine  grace  plays  in  the 
economy  of  salvation. 

Sometime  during  the  first  years  of  the  fifth  century  he  came 
to  Rome,  and  there  he  met  a  certain  Rufinus,  a  Syrian  priest, 
from  whom  he  learned  to  deny  original  sin.  One  of  his 
earliest  disciples  was  Celestius,  a  young  and  ardent  monk,  who 
knew  not  the  value  of  discretion  in  stating  his  own  convictions. 
This  brought  them  both  into  trouble.  After  a  short  stay  in 
Rome,  they  went  to  Sicily,  then  to  Africa,  and  thence  Pelagius 
alone  traveled  to  Palestine.  When  left  to  himself,  Celestius 
began  to  preach  his  false  doctrine  openly,  with  the  result  that 
he  was  summoned  before  a  council,  and  as  he  refused  to  recant 
he  was  excommunicated.  After  this,  Augustine  sent  his  friend 
Orosius  into  Palestine  to  look  after  Pelagius.  This  resulted 
into  a  summoning  of  the  latter  before  a  local  synod,  but  as  he 
was  favored  by  Bishop  John  of  Jerusalem  he  escaped  condem 
nation.  Again  brought  before  a  synod  at  Diospolis,  he  some 
what  modified  his  statements  concerning  the  point  at  issue 
and  a  second  time  escaped  without  censure. 

A  little  later  Pelagius  gained  a  most  distinguished  disciple 
in  Julian,  bishop  of  Eclanum  in  Apulia.  He  was  a  skilled 

1  Cfr.  Tixeront,  H.  D.  II,  432-  Christian  Doctrine ;  Toner,  Dissert- 
505;  *  Bethune-Baker,  An  Intro-  atio  Historico-Theologica  de  Lapsu 
duction  to  the  Early  History  of  et  Peccato  Original!. 

357 


358         FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

logician  and  voluminous  writer,  and,  according  to  Augustine, 
became  the  "  architect "  of  the  whole  Pelagian  system. 
However  the  Catholic  party  was  not  idle.  In  416  two  synods 
were  held,  one  at  Carthage  and  the  other  at  Mileve,  at  both 
of  which  the  innovators  were  condemned.  This  condemna 
tion  was  ratified  by  Innocent  I  in  417.  Another  condemna 
tion  was  passed  upon  them  by  two  subsequent  synods  held  at 
Carthage,  each  of  which  was  attended  by  more  than  two  hun 
dred  bishops.  After  some  misunderstanding  on  the  part  of 
Innocent's  successor,  Pope  Zozimus,  this  condemnation  was 
also  ratified  in  the  Epistola  Tractoria,  which  all  the  bishops 
of  Italy  and  Africa  were  required  to  subscribe.  Eighteen  of 
them  refused,  and  they  were  deposed  from  their  sees.  Some 
twelve  years  later  Julian  tried  to  effect  his  reinstatement  at 
the  Council  of  Ephesus,  but  his  condemnation  by  the  Pope  was 
confirmed. 

The  various  errors  of  the  Pelagian  system  may  be  reduced 
to  the  following  points,  which,  however,  did  not  follow  one 
another  chronologically  in  the  same  order. 

i°.  Adam  was  created  mortal  and  subject  to  all  the  present 
miseries  of  life;  this  state  was  not  the  result  of  sin,  but  the 
primitive  condition  of  nature. 

2°.  When  Adam  sinned  he  did  harm  to  himself  alone,  and 
not  to  his  posterity,  except  in  so  far  as  he  gave  them  a  bad 
example. 

3°.  Hence  men  are  born  now  in  the  same  condition  in  which 
Adam  was  created,  nor  do  they  in  their  birth  contract  any  sin. 

4°.  Therefore  children  do  not  stand  in  need  of  baptism  in 
order  to  be  cleansed  from  any  original  stain,  but  only  that  they 
may  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  which  is  distinct  from 
life  eternal. 

5°.  Man's  natural  powers  and  his  free  will  are  sufficient  to 
overcome  all  temptations,  to  avoid  all  sins,  to  observe  all  the 
commandments  of  God,  and  to  gain  eternal  blessedness. 

6°.  God's  graces  are  merely  external  helps,  or  if  any  of 
them  are  interior  graces,  they  are  nothing  more  than  illumi 
nations  which  are  vouchsafed  to  make  the  practice  of  virtue 
easier. 


PELAGIANISM  AND  ORIGINAL  SIN  359 

7°.  All  these  graces  are  bestowed  by  God  not  gratuitously, 
but  according  to  man's  natural  merits. 

Against  these  errors  Augustine,  at  the  request  of  Bishop 
Aurelius,  first  delivered  a  series  of  sermons  on  the  existence 
of  original  sin  and  the  necessity  of  divine  grace.  His  next 
effort  was  to  protect  the  many  friends  who  consulted  him. 
To  Marcellinus  he  wrote  a  book  On  the  Demerit  and  Re 
mission  of  Sins,  and  the  Baptism  of  Infants;  and  another, 
On  the  Spirit  and  the  Letter,  in  which  he  develops  the  dif 
ficult  doctrine  of  grace  and  free  will.  In  answer  to  a  book 
written  by  Pelagius,  he  composed  a  treatise,  On  Nature  and 
Grace,  and  against  a  work  of  Celestius  he  wrote  a  short  trac 
tate,  On  the  Perfection  of  Righteousness.  Then,  at  the  re 
quest  of  Pope  Boniface,  he  undertook  the  refutation  of  two 
documents  circulated  by  Julian  of  Eclanum,  in  a  work  entitled, 
Four  Books  to  Boniface.  Against  the  same  Julian  he  wrote 
two  other  books,  Contra  Julianum,  and  Contra  Julianum  Opus 
Imperfectum. 

The  main  points  discussed  in  these  several  works  are,  of 
course,  original  sin  and  the  necessity  of  divine  grace ;  but  many 
other  questions,  in  one  way  or  another  connected  with  them, 
come  also  up  for  consideration.  Attention  will  be  called  to 
them  in  this  and  the  following  chapter.  First,  then,  we  shall 
consider  the  subject  of  original  sin. 

When  Celestius,  in  411,  was  urged  by  the  synod  of  Carthage 
to  retract  his  erroneous  views,  he  refused  to  do  so  on  the  plea 
that  the  question  of  original  sin  was  still  a  matter  of  specu 
lation,  that  it  was  not  a  dogma  of  the  faith,  and  that  conse 
quently  he  could  not  be  charged  with  heresy.  Even  priests, 
he  said,  are  not  unanimous  on  the  point.  On  the  other  hand, 
Augustine,  a  few  years  later,  concluded  a  sermon  preached  at 
Carthage  with  these  words :  "  Let  them  calumniate  us  if  they 
please;  but  let  them  not  calumniate  Holy  Church,  that  labors 
daily  for  the  remission  of  original  sin  in  infants.  This  is 
a  fundamental  doctrine.  Should  anyone  err  in  something  not 
yet  defined  by  the  Church,  it  may  be  tolerated ;  but  he  must  not 
try  to  shake  the  foundation  of  the  Church  itself."  2  He  also 

2  Serm.  294. 


360    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

maintained  that  the  Church's  representative  teachers  were  in 
full  agreement  on  this  matter.  Hence  a  brief  summary  of 
the  prevailing  views  on  original  sin,  previous  to  the  Pelagian 
discussion,  is  not  only  advisable  but  necessary.  The  follow 
ing  outline  will  be  sufficient  for  our  purpose. 

Origen,  as  was  pointed  out  in  a  previous  chapter,  most  prob 
ably  held  the  doctrine  of  original  sin;  but  his  peculiar  view 
on  the  preexistence  of  souls  and  their  falling  into  sin  before 
their  union  with  the  body  leaves  some  room  for  doubt.  After 
him  Methodius  of  Olympus  teaches  the  doctrine  rather  clearly. 
"  When  man,"  he  says,  "  was  deceived  by  the  devil,  he  violated 
the  commandment  of  God,  and  thenceforth  sin,  propagated  by 
this  contumacy,  took  up  its  abode  in  him.  .  .  .  For  deprived 
of  the  divine  gifts  and  utterly  prostrated,  we  have  become  a 
prey  to  concupiscence,  which  the  cunning  serpent  and  shrewd 
prevaricator  excited  in  us."  Then  citing  Romans  7,  18,  he 
continues :  "  By  these  words  the  Apostle  designates  the  sin 
which  had  been  brought  upon  us  by  the  violation  of  the  divine 
commandment  through  concupiscence;  from  this  sin  there 
arise  in  us  sprouts  and  branches  and  voluptuous  thoughts."  3 
Didymus  the  Blind  is  also  very  clear.  Speaking  of  the  virginal 
conception  of  Christ,  he  says  by  way  of  explanation :  "If 
the  Saviour  had  assumed  a  body  procreated  by  man,  He  would 
of  course  have  been  stained  by  the  sin  which  all  of  Adam's 
descendants  contract  in  their  birth  from  him ;  for  in  that  case 
He  would  have  been  subject  to  the  same  law  as  we  are."  4 
Athanasius  explains  that  as  we  all  die  in  Adam,  so  are  we 
raised  to  new  life  in  Christ.  And  this  death  in  Adam  does 
not  refer  solely  to  the  death  of  the  body,  but  to  that  of  the 
soul  as  well.  For  "  when  Adam  sinned,"  not  only  the  effects 
of  sin,  but  "  sin  itself  was  transmitted  to  us."  5  Basil  calls 
attention  to  original  sin  when  speaking  about  the  necessity  of 
fasting.  He  admonishes  his  hearers  to  fast  and  give  the  food 
thus  saved  to  the  needy,  that  thereby  they  may  "  pay  for  the 
primitive  sin;  for  just  as  Adam,  by  eating  unlawfully,  trans- 

3  Epiphan.  Adv.  Haer.  64,  60.  5  De   Incarn.   3,  4 ;   Cont.   Arian. 

4  Adv.  Manich.  8.  3,  33;  i,  Si- 


PELAGIANISM  AND  ORIGINAL  SIN  361 

mitted  the  sin,  so  we  do  away  with  the  effects  of  that  perfidious 
food  by  relieving  the  hunger  of  the  neighbor."  6 

On  the  other  hand,  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  although  main 
taining  in  one  place  that  Adam's  sin  is  ours  also,  teaches 
nevertheless  that  unbaptized  children  are  without  sin.7  The 
same  position  is  apparently  taken  by  Chrysostom,  though 
Augustine  interprets  him  differently,  and  even  quotes  from  his 
writings  a  text,  now  lost,  in  which  he  speaks  of  a  "  paternal 
bond  written  by  Adam,  the  beginning  of  a  debt  which  we  have 
increased  by  our  subsequent  sins."  8  Gregory  of  Nyssa  also, 
whilst  speaking  very  clearly  of  Adam's  fall,  makes  no  mention 
whatever  of  the  sin  having  been  transmitted  to  us.  It  has  been 
suggested  that  the  apparent  opposition  of  these  writers  to  the 
more  common  teaching  may  be  explained  by  assuming  that 
they  admitted  indeed  the  transmission  of  a  moral  stain,  but 
did  not  look  upon  it  as  a  sin  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term; 
because  they  considered  that  sin,  properly  so  called,  must 
originate  in  a  person's  own  free  will.  This  assumption,  which 
is  far  from  being  improbable,  would  solve  the  whole  difficulty. 

The  teaching  of  the  Latin  writers  of  this  period  is  much 
more  satisfactory.  They  follow  the  fundamental  views  tra 
ditional  in  the  West.  Thus  St.  Cyprian,  arguing  that  baptism 
should  not  be  withheld  from  children,  says  that  "  they  have 
not  sinned  except  in  so  far  as  they  contracted  the  stain  of  death 
by  reason  of  their  descent  from  Adam  according  to  the  flesh  ; 
and  for  this  they  can  obtain  pardon  more  easily,  as  it  is  not 
a  sin  which  they  themselves  committed,  but  which  they  re 
ceived  from  another."  9  Hilary  states  that  "  in  the  error  of 
one  Adam  all  mankind  went  astray."  10  "  Before  we  are 
born,"  Ambrose  affirms,  "  we  are  defiled  by  an  hereditary 
stain."  And  again :  "  In  Adam  I  fell,  in  Adam  I  was  ejected 
from  paradise,  in  Adam  I  died;  how  can  the  Saviour  restore 
me  to  my  former  condition,  unless  He  find  me  in  Adam?  "  n 
Jerome  speaks  in  a  similar  strain :  "  No  one  is  without  sin, 

6  Horn.  De  Auct.  Mali,  7.  10  In  Ps.  118,  3,  3- 

7  Orat.  40,  23.  11Apol.   Dav.   i,   56;    In   Luc.  7, 

8  Cont.  Jul.  I,  21,  23,  26.  234. 

9  Ep.  64. 


362         FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

not  even  a  child  of  one  day.  .  .  .  For  if  the  stars  of  heaven 
are  not  pure  in  the  sight  of  God,  how  much  less  is  a  worm 
and  rottenness,  and  those  who  are  held  fast  in  the  bonds  of  sin 
committed  by  Adam."  12  Pacian  of  Barcelona  declares  that 
the  "  sin  of  Adam  has  justly  passed  over  to  his  descendants, 
because  they  have  been  begotten  of  him."  13  Finally  a  con 
temporary  writer,  usually  referred  to  as  Ambrosiaster,  not 
only  anticipates  Augustine's  doctrine,  but  uses  almost  the  same 
terms.  Commenting  on  Romans  5,  12,  he  writes:  "It  is 
manifest,  then,  that  in  Adam  all  sinned  quasi  in  massa;  for 
as  he  himself  was  corrupted  by  sin,  those  of  whom  he  became 
the  ancestor  were  all  born  under  sin.  Because  of  him,  there 
fore,  we  are  all  sinners,  because  from  him  we  are  all  de 
scended."  14 

Hence  the  plea  of  Celestius  before  the  synod  at  Carthage, 
that  there  was  no  agreement  on  the  question  of  original  sin, 
had  really  no  foundation  in  fact.  With  the  possible  exceptions 
mentioned  above,  the  writers  of  that  and  the  preceding  century 
were  fairly  well  agreed  on  two  points :  the  existence  of  original 
sin  and  its  connection  with  the  fall  of  Adam.  Its  nature,  the 
ultimate  reason  of  its  propagation,  how  it  could  in  any  sense 
be  called  voluntary  so  as  to  be  a  real  sin,  they  did  not  investi 
gate.  This  devolved  to  a  great  extent  upon  Augustine  in 
course  of  the  controversy  that  ensued,  although  even  he  did 
not  clear  up  these  points  completely.  As  it  would  be  too 
lengthy  to  follow  him  through  the  various  phases  of  the  dis 
cussion,  it  seems  advisable  to  reduce  his  teaching  to  a  con 
nected  system,  which  may  be  done  without  altering  in  any  way 
his  own  exposition  of  the  doctrine  as  contained  in  his  writings. 

In  order  to  prove  the  existence  of  original  sin,  Augustine 
drew  arguments  from  many  different  sources.  The  following 
are  the  most  important : 

i°.  From  Holy  Scripture:  (a)  Ps.  vi,  6.  "What  does 
David  mean  by  saying  that  he  was  conceived  in  iniquity,  if 
not  that  iniquity  is  contracted  from  Adam?  "  (b)  Job  xiv,  4. 
"  It  is  because  of  the  original  stain  that  he  says,  not  even  an 

12  In  Joan.  3,  5.  14In  Ep.  ad  Rom.  5,  12. 

18  De  Bapt.   P.  L.   13,  1092. 


PELAGIANISM  AND  ORIGINAL  SIN  363 

infant  of  one  day  is  free  from  sin."  (c)  Thes.  ii,  3.  "  We 
were  all  the  children  of  wrath,"  because  of  original  sin.  (d) 
Rom.  v,  12.  "  In  whom  all  have  sinned,"  that  is,  in  Adam, 
therefore  all  are  born  in  sin.  (e)  John  iii,  5.  "  Unless  any 
one  be  born  again  of  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  cannot 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  " ;  hence  everyone  has  con 
tracted  a  sin  that  bars  the  way. 

2°.  From  the  teaching  of  the  Fathers:  Cyprian,  Hilary, 
Ambrose,  Ambrosiaster,  Irenaeus,  Reticius  of  Autun,  Olym- 
pius  of  Spain,  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  Basil,  Chrysostom,  the 
fourteen  bishops  of  the  synod  of  Diospolis;  these  are  cited  as 
witnesses  to  the  teaching  of  the  Church.  With  them  on  his 
side,  he  tells  Julian :  "  You  are  convicted  of  error  from  all 
the  world  over;  the  testimony  of  these  holy  men  is  brighter 
than  the  sun."  1B 

3°.  From  Infant  Baptism:  "That  baptism  is  an  ablution, 
a  cleansing;  those  who  receive  it  are  redeemed  from  the 
slavery  of  Satan,  and  share  in  the  redemption  of  Jesus  Christ, 
as  is  proved  by  the  exorcisms  and  by  the  renunciation  of  Satan 
required  of  the  sponsors  in  the  name  of  these  children  " ;  there 
fore  they  were  born  in  sin.  "  You  say  that  because  of  the 
sins  of  another  these  little  ones  ought  not  to  have  perished. 
They  are  the  sins  of  another,  but  the  sins  of  their  father :  and 
for  this  reason,  by  the  law  of  descent  and  propagation,  they 
are  also  ours."  16 

4°.  From  the  sufferings  of  little  children:  "They  extend 
even  to  attacks  from  the  demons.  How  can  one  account  for 
them,  except  by  reason  of  original  sin  ?  They  are  not  chastise 
ments  for  personal  sins,  nor  are  they  intended  to  try  the  virtue 
of  these  little  ones."  17 

5°.  From  the  profound  and  universal  misery  of  mankind 
in  its  present  condition :  disease,  pain,  poverty,  vice,  labor,  ac 
cidents,  misfortunes  of  all  sorts,  which  are  the  permanent 
condition  of  our  race.  Would  the  good  God  have  placed  all 
mankind  in  such  a  wretched  state,  were  it  not  on  account  of 
some  primitive  fault  in  which  all  have  a  share?  18 

15  Cont.  Jul.  i,  30.  17  Cont.  Jul.  6,  67. 

16  Ibid.  7,  ii ;  Opus  Imperf.  I,  48.          18  Opus  Imperf.  i,  50,  54. 


364    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

As  to  the  nature  of  original  sin  not  much  can  be  said  except 
that  it  is  involved  in  great  obscurity.  "  Nothing  is  better 
known  than  its  existence,  nothing  is  more  difficult  to  under 
stand  than  its  nature."  19  However,  it  must  in  some  way  con 
sist  in  concupiscence;  primarily  in  the  craving  for  bodily 
pleasures,  and  secondarily  in  a  general  tendency  away  from 
good :  "  since  every  one  is  turned  away  from  what  is  divine 
and  of  permanent  value  to  what  is  changeable  and  of  uncertain 
issue."20  "  This  concupiscence  (especially  sexual  passion)  is 
an  evil  with  which  every  man  is  born  " ;  therefore  it  must  in 
some  manner  be  connected  with  the  primitive  fault.21 

However  original  sin  does  not  consist  in  concupiscence  as 
such,  but  rather  in  its  guilt.  It  is  because  of  Adam's  sins  that 
concupiscence  is  found  in  all  his  descendants,  hence  its  presence 
under  these  conditions  is  imputed  to  them  as  a  fault.  When 
persons  are  baptized,  and  thereby  freed  from  original  sin,  con 
cupiscence  indeed  remains,  but  its  guilt  is  taken  away.  Bap 
tism  removes  the  shaft,  yet  the  wound  remains.22 

This  guilt  of  concupiscence  is  in  each  individual  a  real  sin, 
because  it  is  in  a  certain  sense  a  voluntary  guilt.  Not  that  it 
was  caused  by  the  personal  will  of  those  who  are  infected  with 
it,  but  by  reason  of  Adam's  position  in  respect  to  his  descend 
ants.  "  That  which  in  little  children  is  called  original  sin,  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  they  are  unable  to  use  their  free  will, 
is  not  without  reason  termed  voluntary,  because,  contracted  by 
the  sinful  will  of  the  first  man,  it  has  become  in  a  manner 
hereditary."  23  It  is  our  own  sin  through  our  descent  from 
Adam.  Though  the  sin  of  another,  it  is  nevertheless  by  the 
law  of  descent  and  propagation  also  our  own. 

The  fact  of  transmission  is  certain,  but  the  manner  is  in 
volved  in  great  obscurity.  However  it  seems  plain  that  the 
instrumental  cause  of  transmission  is  concupiscence :  not  actual, 
but  habitual.  It  is  on  account  of  this  habitual  concupiscence 
that  even  of  the  holy  and  lawful  wedlock  of  God's  own  children 
are  born  children  of  this  world  and  not  children,  of  God. 

19  De  Morib.  Eccl.  Cath.  I,  40.  22  De  Nupt.  et  Concup.  i,  28,  29; 

20  De  Lib.  Arbit.  I,  34.  De  Trin.  14,  23. 

21  De  Pec.  Mer.  et  Rem.  I,  57.  23  Retract,  i,  13,  5- 


PELAGIANISM  AND  ORIGINAL  SIN  365 

Parents  do  not  beget  children  by  reason  of  their  divine  son- 
ship,  but  by  reason  of  the  concupiscence  that  is  in  them.24 
Hence  it  was  that  Christ,  in  whom  original  sin  had  no  part, 
chose  to  be  born  of  a  virgin.  "  For  although  Mary's  own 
body  had  been  conceived  under  the  influence  of  concupiscence, 
nevertheless  as  she  did  not  conceive  her  Son's  body  in  the  same 
way,  she  did  not  transmit  concupiscence  to  Him."  25 

The  fact,  therefore,  that  concupiscence  is  the  instrumental 
cause  of  the  transmission  of  original  sin  must  be  admitted; 
but  precisely  how  the  transmission  is  thus  effected,  is  more 
or  less  a  matter  of  conjecture.  There  are  two  hypotheses  that 
seem  admissible,  yet  neither  of  them  is  without  its  difficulties. 
Either  both  body  and  soul  are  generated  by  the  father  in  a 
vitiated  condition,  or  the  body  alone  is  thus  generated  by  him. 
In  the  former  supposition  everything  is  clear,  except  the  gen 
eration  of  the  soul.  If  this  is  repugnant,  then  the  soul,  created 
by  God  pure  and  innocent,  is  vitiated  or  stained  in  its  union 
with  the  body,  according  to  God's  hidden  justice.26  Theo 
retically  Augustine  favored  the  view  which  held  the  creation 
of  individual  souls  by  God,  but  as  that  seemed  to  make  the 
transmission  of  original  sin  unintelligible,  he  in  practice  pre 
ferred  to  say  that  they  are  derived  "  ex  traduce  seminis." 
The  existence  of  original  sin,  he  argued,  is  a  matter  of  faith, 
the  creation  of  individual  souls  is  not ;  therefore  I  cling  to  the 
former,  and,  if  need  be,  sacrifice  the  latter.27 

The  consequences  of  original  sin  are  many  and  grievous. 
Besides  the  physical  evils  already  mentioned,  the  author  em 
phasizes  especially  the  following: 

i°.  The  loss  of  freedom  in  respect  of  moral  good.  Adam, 
before  the  fall,  had  the  power  of  avoiding  evil  and  of  doing 
good;  by  the  assistance  of  God's  grace,  the  auxilium  sine  quo 
non,  he  could  perform  actions  that  were  meritorious  of  a 
supernatural  reward.  This  freedom  and  power,  which  the 
author  calls  libertas,  was  lost  to  Adam's  descendants  through 

24  De  Nupt.  et  Concup.  i,  20,  21,      Concup.  i,  27. 

27.  26Contr.  Jul.  5,  7- 

25  Serm.  151,  5;  cfr.  De  Nupt.  et          27  Ibid.  5,  17. 


366    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

original  sin.  Not  that  free  will  itself,  or  the  liberum  arbi- 
trium,  was  lost:  no,  free  will  did  not  perish  in  the  fall,  but 
freedom  did  —  that  freedom  which  Adam  had  in  paradise, 
and  which  enabled  him  to  fulfill  all  justice.28 

2°.  Eternal  damnation  of  unbaptized  children  who  die  be 
fore  they  come  to  the  use  of  reason.  Since,  aside  from  pur 
gatory,  there  is  no  intermediate  place  between  heaven  and  hell, 
and  since  these  children,  owing  to  original  sin  of  which  they 
were  not  cleansed  before  death,  cannot  enter  heaven,  their 
portion  must  be  with  the  damned  in  everlasting  fire.29  How 
ever,  the  positive  pain  which  they  there  suffer  is  "  omnium 
mitissima,"  the  slightest  of  all  pains  found  in  that  place  of 
horrors.30 

3°.  Universal  damnation,  from  which  there  is  no  redemp 
tion  except  through  the  gratuitously  bestowed  grace  of  God. 
"  Things,  therefore,  were  in  this  condition :  all  mankind,  as 
one  mass  of  damnation,  lay  prostrate  in  evil  and  groveled 
therein,  rushing  from  evil  to  evil,  and,  sharing  the  fate  of  the 
angels  who  had  sinned,  bore  the  just  punishment  of  its  impious 
desertion."  31  Hence  were  it  not  for  the  free  grace  of  God, 
adults  as  well  as  children  would  all  be  condemned  to  the  eternal 
pains 'of  hell.  With  this  is  connected  Augustine's  theory  of 
predestination  and  reprobation,  of  which  something  will  be 
said  in  the  following  chapter. 

This  is,  in  brief  outline,  St.  Augustine's  teaching  on  original 
sin.  It  takes  account  of  many  points  never  touched  by  his 
predecessors,  yet  it  also  involves  some  of  them  in  almost  im 
penetrable  obscurity.  His  partial  identification  of  original  sin 
with  concupiscence  was  destined  to  retard  the  further  develop 
ment  of  this  doctrine  for  many  centuries.  Not  a  few  dog 
matic  theologians  have  tried  to  interpret  it  as  being  in 
full  accord  with  present  day  teaching,  but  there  is  little  in 
the  works  of  St.  Augustine  that  suggests  such  an  interpreta 
tion.  At  all  events,  it  was  never  so  interpreted  until  the  time 
of  St.  Thomas,  and  then  only  to  a  limited  extent.  Yet  all 

28  Contr.    Duas    Epist.    Pelag.    i,         30  De  Pecc.  Men  et  Rem.  I,  21. 
5.  31  Enchir.  27. 

29  Opus  Imperf.  Contr.  Jul.  3,  199. 


PELAGIANISM  AND  ORIGINAL  SIN  367 

these  imperfections  and  obscurities  should  not  detract  from 
the  consideration  due  to  Augustine's  work.  With  the  excep 
tion  of  St.  Anselm,  no  one  improved  on  his  teaching  until 
the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  century.  And  even  then  progress 
was  slow,  because  of  the  difficulty  of  the  subject.  He  well 
said :  "  Nihil  ad  praedicandum  notius,  nihil  ad  intelligendum 
secretius." 


CHAPTER  XXIV 
THE   QUESTION    OF   GRACE:    SEMI-PELAGIANISM 

As  already  stated  in  the  preceding  chapter,  Pelagianism  grew 
out  of  the  undue  emphasis  wriich  its  author  placed  upon  the 
power  of  man's  free  will.  Since  the  human  will  is  free,  he 
contended,  man  can  do  good  or  evil  just  as  he  chooses :  hence 
if  he  is  not  perfect,  as  his  Father  in  heaven  also  is  perfect, 
the  fault  lies  entirely  with  his  free  will.  He  failed  to  reach 
perfection,  because  he  failed  to  will  it. 

It  was  to  maintain  this  fundamental  proposition  that  Pela- 
gius  and  his  followers  denied  the  existence  of  original  sin,  and 
swept  aside  all  supernatural  gifts  and  graces  as  in  any  way 
necessary  for  the  practice  of  perfect  virtue.  God  suited  man's 
strength  to  the  burden  He  imposed;  hence  for  the  carrying  of 
this  burden  man's  nature  suffices.  What  Adam  received  in 
the  beginning  from  the  hand  of  his  Creator,  that  he  later  on 
transmitted  to  his  descendants:  neither  more  nor  less,  and 
therefore  Adam  was  created  in  the  same  state  in  which  human 
nature  has  ever  been  since  his  day.  He  was  neither  immortal 
nor  endowed  with  any  other  prerogative  surpassing  the  ex 
igencies  of  his  nature.  By  the  right  use  of  his  free  will  he 
could  merit  his  eternal  salvation,  and  also  such  extra  divine 
helps  as  would  make  the  practice  of  virtue  more  easy.  And 
precisely  the  same  obtains  in  our  case.  We  receive  no  graces 
that  are  such  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term  —  entirely  gra 
tuitous  gifts  which  lie  beyond  the  reach  of  natural  merit. 
Furthermore,  with  the  possible  exception  of  interior  illumina 
tions,  whatever  so-called  graces  we  do  receive  consist  in  purely 
external  helps,  such  as  instruction,  example,  encouragement. 

This  is  really  the  essence  of  Pelagianism,  which,  together 
with  the  denial  of  original  sin,  was  finally  condemned  by  the 

368 


PELAGIANISM  AND  GRACE  369 

Council  of  Carthage,  held  in  418,  and  approved  by  Pope 
Zozimus  in  the  same  year.  In  a  considerably  modified  form 
Pelagianism  appeared  a  few  years  later  in  Southern  Gaul, 
where  men  of  undoubted  learning  and  holiness  considered 
Augustine's  teaching  on  grace  and  predestination  to  restrict 
unduly  the  freedom  of  man's  will.  Their  system  of  teaching 
is  known  as  Semi-Pelagianism,  which  will  be  considered  in 
the  second  part  of  this  chapter. 

A  —  THE  QUESTION  OF  GRACE 

In  this  matter  there  are  evidently  two  points  that  call  for 
separate  consideration:  First,  man's  primitive  condition  in 
respect  of  gratuitous  gifts  and  graces;  secondly,  man's  con 
dition  since  the  fall  in  reference  to  the  same  or  similar  gifts 
and  graces.  Both  points  had  frequently  been  touched  upon 
by  Eastern  and  Western  writers  previous  to  the  controversy, 
but  they  were  very  much  clarified  by  the  efforts  of  Augustine 
to  defend  the  traditional  teaching  of  the  Church.  It  will  be 
helpful  if  .we  first  summarize  the  general  views  that  were  then 
prevalent,  and  thereafter  briefly  outline  Augustine's  system 
of  thought  in  this  matter.  However,  as  the  common  teaching 
on  man's  primitive  condition  has  already  been  reviewed  in  a 
previous  chapter,  under  the  heading,  "  Anthropology,"  that 
part  may  be  omitted  here;  except  that  a  short  account  of 
Augustine's  own  views  on  the  subject  is  properly  inserted  in 
this  place  to  round  out  his  system. 

As  was  pointed  out  in  the  chapter  referred  to  in  the  pre 
ceding  paragraph,  all  the  writers  of  this  period  looked  upon 
the  grace  of  Christ  as  effecting  in  us  a  certain  deification  which 
makes  us  partakers  of  the  divine  nature,  not  indeed  substan 
tially,  but  through  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  a 
close  moral  union  with  the  Godhead.  This  grace  is  first  com 
municated  to  us  in  baptism.  Of  the  effects  produced  by 
baptism,  St.  Chrysostom  gives  the  following  vivid  description 
whilst  speaking  of  the  neophytes :  "  They  are  not  only  free 
but  holy,  not  only  holy  but  just,  not  only  just  but  sons,  not 
only  sons  but  heirs,  not  only  heirs  but  brothers  of  Christ,  not 
only  brothers  of  Christ  but  coheirs,  not  only  coheirs  but  mem- 


370    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

bers,  not  only  members  but  temples,  not  only  temples  but  also 
organs  of  the  Spirit.  See  how  many  are  the  blessings  be 
stowed  in  baptism,  and  yet  some  fancy  that  the  heavenly  grace 
consists  only  in  the  remission  of  sins ;  but  we  have  enumerated 
ten  glorious  gifts.  And  for  this  reason  we  also  baptize  the 
little  ones,  although  they  are  not  stained  by  (personal?)  sin, 
so  that  they  may.  receive  sanctity,  justice,  divine  adoption,  a 
title  to  inheritance,  the  brotherhood  of  Christ,  and  being  ac 
counted  His  members."  1 

Baptism,  then,  makes  us  fit  for  heaven ;  it  bestows  the  grace 
of  divine  adoption  and  makes  us  coheirs  of  Christ.  But  the 
title  to  heaven,  thus  gratuitously  bestowed,  must  be  preserved ; 
it  must  be  made  good  by  a  life  of  practical  faith  and  divine 
charity.  For  this  we  need  the  help  of  God ;  it  is  a  work  that 
lies  beyond  the  reach  of  our  own  natural  strength.  It  is  true, 
free  will  remained  after  the  fall,  because  it  is  an  essential  en 
dowment  of  our  nature ;  but  unaided  free  will  can  do  no  more 
than  enable  us  to  perform  naturally  good  works;  it  cannot 
reach  up  into  the  supernatural  order. 

This  was  fully  recognized  by  the  writers  now  under  con 
sideration.  Salvation,  says  St.  Basil,  does  not  come  from 
the  power  of  man,  but  from  the  knowledge  and  grace  of  God.2 
Or  as  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  words  it :  "  Our  salvation  must 
come  both  from  ourselves  and  from  God."  3  Commenting 
on  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  "  non  est  volentis  neque  currentis, 
sed  miserentis  Dei,"  he  says :  "  Since  there  are  some  who 
pride  themselves  on  the  good  they  have  done,  ascribing  all  to 
themselves,  nor  referring  anything  to  their  Creator  and  the 
wisdom  of  their  Maker  from  whom  all  has  been  received, 
Paul  teaches  that  even  for  the  desiring  of  what  is  good  we 
stand  in  need  of  divine  assistance;  nay  even  the  choosing  of 
what  is  right  is  something  divine  and  a  gift  that  comes  to  us 
from  God's  goodness.  For  our  salvation  must  come  both 
from  ourselves  and  from  God.  .  .  .  Thus  because  to  will  is 
also  from  God,  hence  he  very  justly  ascribes  the  whole  to  God. 
However  much  you  may  run,  however  much  you  may  strive, 

i  Apud  August.  Contr.  Jul.  I,  6,         2  De  Spir.  Sanct.  18,  55. 
21.  8  Orat.  37,  13- 


PELAGIANISM  AND  GRACE  371 

you  have  need  of  Him  who  is  disposed  to  crown  your  ef 
forts."  4 

Practically  the  same  view  is  taken  by  Chrysostom,  although 
he  is  frequently  adduced  as  a  strong  advocate  of  the  power 
of  man's  free  will.  "  God,"  he  says,  "  looks  for  occasions 
from  us  to  show  forth  His  great  liberality.  Therefore,  lest 
through  laziness  we  should  deprive  ourselves  of  His  gifts,  let 
us  hasten  and  press  forward  to  lay  hold  of  the  beginning  and 
the  way  that  leads  to  virtue,  so  that  helped  by  assistance  from 
on  high  we  may  also  be  able  to  reach  the  end.  For  it  is 
indeed  not  possible  for  us  to  do  any  good  as  we  ought,  unless 
we  be  helped  by  divine  grace."  5  It  is  true,  this  looks  as  if 
he  placed  the  beginning  of  good  works  in  our  own  hands,  but 
it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  he  was  pleading  for  personal 
efforts,  and  thus  naturally  emphasized  his  hearers'  own  part 
in  the  work  of  their  salvation.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
another  statement,  which,  as  it  stands,  has  a  decidedly  Semi- 
Pelagian  coloring.  Placing  before  his  hearers  the  example  of 
Abraham,  in  order  to  urge  them  on  to  strenuous  efforts  in  the 
practice  of  virtue,  he  says :  "  But  perhaps  some  will  say  that 
he  received  abundant  grace  from  God,  and  the  God  of  all 
manifested  in  his  regard  a  singular  providence.  This  is  so, 
and  I  confess  it.  But  if  he  had  not  first  done  what  in  him 
lay,  he  would  not  have  received  what  came  to  him  from  the 
Lord.  Consider,  therefore,  not  this  alone,  but,  having  due 
regard  to  each  particular,  learn  how  in  all  things  he  first  gave 
proof  of  his  own  virtue,  and  thus  merited  the  divine  help."  6 
Similar  views  are  brought  out  again  and  again  in  the  writings 
of  Chrysostom,  but  with  all  this  he  unhesitatingly  ascribes  the 
chief  part  in  our  good  works  to  the  grace  of  God.7 

Contemporary  Latin  writers  speak  in  very  much  the  same 
straint.  They,  too,  are,  without  exception,  very  clear  on 
the  elevation  of  human  nature  through  the  grace  of  Christ, 

4  Ibid.  Homily  4,   on   the   Epistle   to   the 

5  In  Gen.  Horn.  25,  7.  Ephesians,    n.    2 :     "  Not   even    the 

6  Ibid.  42,  i.  gift   of    faith    is    ours,    but    God's; 

7  Thus  in  Homily  60,  on  Matthew,  it  is  not  bestowed  because  of  our 
n.  2 :     "  We  are  called  not  because  works." 

of   merit,   but  by  grace."    Also   in 


372    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

and  also  on  the  constant  need  there  is  of  divine  help  to  make 
salvation  possible.  '  You  see,  then,"  writes  Ambrose,  "  that 
the  power  of  the  Lord  everywhere  sustains  human  endeavor; 
so  much  so  that  without  the  Lord  no  one  can  build,  without 
the  Lord  no  one  can  guard,  without  the  Lord  no  one  can  even 
begin  anything."  8  "  We  must  be  assisted  and  directed  by 
God's  grace,"  affirms  Hilary,  "  that  we  may  keep  His  precepts 
and  work  out  our  salvation."  9  With  this  Jerome  is  in  full 
agreement  when  he  says :  "  It  is  for  God  to  call  us,  and  for 
us  to  believe."  10  Victorinus  is  even  more  explicit.  Com 
menting  on  the  words  of  the  Apostle,  "  work  out  your  sal 
vation,"  he  says :  "  But  again,  lest  anyone  should  be  remiss 
in  giving  thanks  to  God,  on  seeing  that  he  himself  works  out 
his  salvation,  it  is  added :  '  For  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you 
according  to  your  good  will,  both  to  will  and  to  accomplish/ 
Therefore  work  out  your  salvation,"  he  says ;  "  but  this  work 
itself  is  from  God.  For  God  worketh  in  you,  and  He  brings 
it  about  that  you  may  thus  will.  .  .  .  Thus  who  worketh  not 
as  assisted  by  God,  in  the  first  place  does  not  have  the  will  to 
work;  and  furthermore,  even  if  he  had  the  will,  he  is  not  able 
to  accomplish  anything,  because  he  has  no  good  will."  n 

But  here  again,  in  nearly  all  these  writers  expressions  are 
occasionally  met  with  that  have  a  Semi-Pelagian  ring  to  them. 
Man  must  will,  must  desire,  must  reach  out  to  the  good  work, 
then  God  in  His  goodness  will  bestow  His  grace.  These  men 
spoke  at  times  unguardedly,  because  the  danger  of  Pelagianism 
was  not  yet  apparent. 

In  this  condition,  then,  did  Augustine  find  the  doctrine  on 
grace  when  he  was  called  upon  to  refute  the  errors  of  Pelagius 
and  his  followers.  He  did  not  altogether  revolutionize  it,  nor 
in  any  way  change  it;  yet  whilst  keeping  all  that  was  then 
commonly  accepted,  he  developed  it  to  such  an  extent,  that  a 
grateful  posterity  has  honored  him  with  the  title,  Doctor 
Gratiae.  The  following  outline  of  his  teaching  on  the  subject 
is  all  that  can  here  be  attempted. 

As  already  stated  above,  a  short  account  of  his  views  on 

8  In  Luc.  2,  84.  10In  Is.  49,  4. 

9  In  Ps.  118,  I,  12.  "In  Epist.  ad  Philipp.  2,  12,  13. 


PELAGIANISM  AND  GRACE  373 

man's  primitive  condition  is  properly  given  in  this  place,  al 
though  the  common  teaching  on  that  phase  of  the  subject  has 
been  reviewed  in  a  previous  chapter.  It  will  give  some  com 
pleteness  to  his  system.  Leaving  aside  some  doubtful  ex 
pressions  in  his  earlier  writings,  his  final  view  comes  to  this. 
Before  their  fall,  Adam  and  Eve  were  dowered  with  many 
preternatural  and  supernatural  gifts,  which  perfected  them  in 
soul  and  body,  and  made  their  existence  in  paradise  one  of 
supreme  happiness.  Their  bodies,  though  mortal  by  nature, 
had  been  gifted  with  immortality  by  the  generosity  of  their 
Creator.  They  were  at  one  and  the  same  time  mortal  and 
immortal:  mortal  in  the  sense  that  their  natural  constitution 
admitted  of  death;  immortal  in  so  far  as  owing  to  God's 
special  providence  death  had  no  power  over  them  —  they  were 
in  a  condition  not  to  die.12  This  immortality  implied  im 
munity  from  suffering,  disease,  old  age :  theirs  was  a  perpetual 
youth,  a  life  free  from  all  misery,  which,  after  a  definite  dura 
tion  here  on  earth,  was  to  be  perfected  by  the  greater  blessings 
of  life  eternal.13  Their  minds  were  endowed  with  a  high 
degree  of  infused  knowledge  and  wisdom,  which  fitted  them 
for  their  exalted  position  of  ancestors  and  instructors  of  the 
human  race.14  Furthermore,  they  were  free  from  all  con 
cupiscence,  so  that  the  sensitive  part  of  their  nature  was  in 
perfect  subjection  to  reason,  and  their  reason  was  subject  to 
God.15  They  were  indeed  free,  and  capable  of  choosing  either 
good  or  evil ;  but  theirs  was  a  freedom  with  a  decided  inclina 
tion  to  good.  They  could  sin  and  they  did  sin,  yet  before  sin 
was  committed  they  were  free  from  all  interior  inclination  to 
sin.16 

The  foundation  of  these  gifts  was  the  "  gratia  justitiae,"  or, 
as  we  now  call  it,  sanctifying  grace.  Adam  was  "  vestitus 
gratia,"  clothed  with  grace.  It  was  the  same  grace  in  which 
we  are  renewed  through  the  redemption  of  Christ.  We  re 
ceive  "  per  gratiam  justitiae "  that  divine  likeness  to  God 

12  De  Gen.  ad  Lit.  6,  25,  36.  15  De  Gen.  ad  Lit.  n,  i,  3. 

13  De  Civit.  Dei,  14,  26;  De  Gen.  16  De    Corrept.    et    Grat    n,   29; 
ad  Lit.  8,  n.  Opus  Imperf.  5,  61. 

14  Opus  Imperf.  5,  I. 


374    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

which  Adam  forfeited  by  his  disobedience,  and  through  Jesus 
we  enter  again  into  the  possession  of  the  "  justia  fidei,"  the 
justice  of  faith,  of  which  we  were  deprived  in  Adam.  This 
"  gratia  "  made  Adam  a  spiritual  man  in  his  inmost  being.17 
This  was  Adam's  natural  state;  not  natural  in  the  sense  that 
it  was  due  to  his  nature,  but  in  so  far  as  God  constituted  him 
therein  as  his  actual  and  permanent  condition.  Hence  the 
contention  of  some  that  Augustine  considered  the  primitive 
condition  of  our  first  parents  as  the  natural  state  of  man,  in 
which  God  must  create  him,  is  really  without  foundation.  The 
most  that  can  be  said  is  that  Augustine  did  not  professedly 
consider  the  possibility  of  the  state  of  pure  nature,  but  simply 
looked  at  the  matter  historically  as  he  found  it  delineated  in 
Holy  Scripture. 

Besides  these  supernatural  gifts  with  which  our  first  parents 
were  dowered  as  they  came  from  the  creative  hand  of  God, 
they  received  also  a  special  divine  help  without  which  they 
could  not  have  worked  out  their  salvation.  This  wras  an 
"  auxilium  sine  quo  non,"  or  an  actual  grace  necessary  for  the 
performance  of  good  works  and  for  final  perseverance  in  God's 
friendship.18  They  had,  in  virtue  of  their  elevation  to  the 
supernatural  state,  the  intrinsic  powers  or  faculties  to  perform 
salutary  actions ;  yet  these  powers  must  be  assisted  in  exerting 
their  activity  by  the  help  of  God,  so  that  their  intrinsic 
capability  might  be  actuated  and  find  issue  in  salutary  acts. 
This  help  was  different  from  the  grace  which  we  receive  since 
the  fall;  for  as  through  Adam's  sin  we  were  deprived  of  the 
very  power  to  act  meritoriously,  in  our  case  grace  is  not  only  a 
help  without  which  we  do  not  perform  good  works,  but  without 
which  we  cannot:  it  must  supply  the  very  power  or  faculty 
itself.  Hence  the  author  calls  it  an  "  auxilium  quo,"  a  help 
which  gives  the  power  to  act  supernaturally  and  also  assists 
that  power  in  its  action.  Strictly  speaking,  this  "  auxilium 
quo"  includes  both  sanctifying  and  actual  grace;  but  Augus 
tine,  in  his  controversy  with  the  Pelagians,  considers  it  chiefly 
under  this  latter  aspect.  His  teaching  on  the  subject  may  be 
reduced  to  the  following  points : 

17  De  Gen.  ad  Lit.  6,  37,  38,  39.  18  De  Grat.  et  Lib.  Arbit.  33. 


PELAGIANISM  AND  GRACE 


'375 


i°.  In  the  matter  of  actual  grace  we  must  distinguish  be 
tween  exterior  and  interior  graces.  Exterior  graces  are  of 
many  different  kinds,  comprising  instruction,  exhortation, 
example,  pious  reading,  or  any  occurrence  that  may  lead  us 
to  thoughts  of  a  better  life.  Interior  graces  are  of  two  kinds : 
illuminations  of  the  mind  that  teach  us  what  to  do,  and  motions 
of  the  will  that  lead  us  to  act.  "  Let  them  read  and  under 
stand,"  the  author  says  in  reference  to  the  Pelagians,  "  let  them 
behold  and  confess  that  not  by  the  law  alone  and  by  teaching 
coming  from  without  does  God  work  in  the  hearts  of  men  by 
His  marvelous  and  ineffable  power,  but  also  in  an  interior  and 
invisible  manner;  and  this  not  only  by  revealing  Himself  to  the 
mind,  but  likewise  by  properly  disposing  the  will."  19 

2°.  Interior  graces  are  further  divided  into  prevenient  and 
concomitant,  or  preventing  and  assisting  grace.  The  former 
precedes  the  good  action  and  leads  up  to  it;  it  comes  to  us 
from  God  without  our  own  doing:  the  latter  accompanies  the 
good  action,  and  with  this  we  must  cooperate.  "  That  we 
may  will,  God  gives  to  us  without  any  action  on  our  part; 
but  when  we  will,  and  will  in  such  wise  as  to  do,  He  assists 
us :  nevertheless  without  Him,  either  bringing  it  about  that  we 
will,  or  helping  us  when  we  will,  we  can  do  nothing  in  the 
way  of  (supernaturally)  good  works/'20 

3°.  Interior  graces  that  precede  the  good  actions  may  be 
either  merely  sufficient  or  they  may  also  be  efficacious.  In  the 
former  case  the  divine  help  enables  us  to  act,  yet  the  act  does 
not  follow.  In  itself  the  grace  was  a  sufficient  help,  but  we 
failed  to  correspond.  "  It  is  the  grace  of  God  that  helps  the 
wills  of  men;  and  when  they  are  not  helped  by  it,  the  reason 
is  in  themselves  and  not  in  God."  21  In  this  sense  we  too  have 
an  "  auxilium  sine  quo  non,"  which  we  may  abuse  as  Adam 
did  in  paradise.  We  have  the  power  to  act,  given  us  by  the 
grace  that  is  presented ;  we  have  also  the  necessary  assistance 
to  make  this  power  effective :  but  we  fail  to  do  our  part. 
Hence  the  grace  is  not  efficacious ;  it  is  merely  sufficient. 

In  his  explanation  of  efficacious  grace  the  author  is  some- 

19  De  Grat.  Christi  et  Pecc.  Orig.         20  De  Grat.  et  Lib.  Arbit.  33. 
i,  25,  8,  g.  21  De  Pecc.  Mer.  et  Rem.  2,  17. 


376    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

times  very  obscure.  He  understands  by  it,  of  course,  a  grace 
that  not  only  enables  us  to  act,  but  under  the  influence  of  which 
we  do  act.  In  itself  it  is  a  "  delectatio,"  a  drawing  on  to 
perform  the  good  work  in  question.  This  is  sufficiently  clear; 
but  what  is  the  influence  of  this  "  delectatio  "  upon  the  will  ? 
He  speaks  of  it  at  times  as  if  it  were  irresistible;  and  this  is 
the  sense  in  which  Jansenists  and  many  Protestants  interpret 
his  teaching  on  efficacious  grace.  From  expressions  like  this : 
"  Quod  enim  amplius  nos  delectat,  secundum  id  operemur 
necesse  est,"  22  they  infer  that  in  Augustine's  view  efficacious 
grace  is  a  divine  help  which  takes  away  man's  freedom  of 
action,  in  the  sense  that  its  impulse  is  irresistible.  The  will 
may  indeed  cooperate  with  such  a  grace,  it  need  not  be  merely 
passive ;  but  it  has  no  power  to  refuse  its  cooperation.  In  this 
sense  men  are  not  induced  to  act,  but  driven  thereto. 

This  is,  however,  a  false  inference.  For  although  Augus 
tine  strongly  emphasized  the  power  of  divine  grace,  he  ever 
did  so  without  denying  the  freedom  of  the  human  will.  A 
large  number  of  texts  might  be  adduced  in  support  of  this 
point.  Thus  he  says :  "  Men  are  induced  to  act,  and  not 
driven  in  such  a  way  that  they  themselves  do  not  act  at  all."  23 
"  To  assent  to  God's  calling  or  to  dissent  from  it,  as  I  have 
said,  is  the  part  of  our  own  will."  24  He  treats  this  matter 
very  thoroughly  in  his  De  Diver  sis  Quaestionibus,  Ad  Simpli- 
cianum;  and  although  that  treatise  was  one  of  his  first  works, 
he  refers  to  it  again  and  again  in  his  later  years,  as  a  book  in 
which,  "  quantum  Deus  adjuvit,  acriter  disputavi  contra  inimi- 
cos  gratiae  Dei." 25  It  contains,  therefore,  his  consistent 
teaching  on  the  nature  of  efficacious  grace ;  and  that  teaching, 
as  there  set  forth,  places  the  efficacy  of  grace  precisely  in  this, 
that  the  divine  call  is  of  such  a  nature  as  to  move  man's  will 
to  act  freely.26  Hence  dogmatic  theologians,  after  carefully 
examining  all  that  has  been  written  on  the  subject,  unhesi 
tatingly  appeal  to  St.  Augustine  as  an  authority  for  the  free 
dom  of  the  human  will  under  the  action  of  divine  grace.  The 

22  Expos.  Ep.  ad  Gal.  49.  25  Retract.  2,  37- 

23  Serm.  156,  11,  n.  26  Op.  cit.  I,  2,  13. 
2*De  Spir.  et  Lit.  34,  60. 


PELAGIANISM  AND  GRACE 


377 


"  necessity,"  therefore,  of  which  Augustine  speaks  as  induced 
by  the  greater  "  delectatio,"  in  so  far  as  it  affects  the  will,  is 
simply  a  strong  inclination  to  follow  the  appeal  of  divine  grace ; 
it  is  in  no  sense  irresistible. 

4°.  Grace  is  absolutely  necessary,  not  only  for  the  perfect 
ing  of  good  works,  but  for  their  beginning  as  well;  and  also 
for  the  beginning  of  faith.  "  We  cannot  even  will  unless  we 
be  called :  and  when  after  being  called  we  do  will,  our  own  will 
and  endeavor  are  not  sufficient  to  lead  us  whither  we  are  called, 
unless  God  supplies  the  strength  for  the  finishing  of  our 
course."  2T  "  Our  sufficiency  by  which  we  begin  to  believe  is 
from  God."  28  Grace  is,  moreover,  purely  a  gift  of  God's 
mercy.  "  For  it  will  not  be  the  grace  of  God  in  any  way, 
unless  it  has  been  gratuitous  in  every  way.  Grace  does  not 
find  the  merits  in  existence,  but  causes  them.  For  if  grace  be 
by  merit,  thou  hast  bought,  not  received  gratis."  29  However, 
actions  performed  under  the  influence  of  grace  are  meritorious, 
both  in  respect  of  additional  graces  and  eternal  glory.30  But 
final  perseverance  can  be  obtained  only  by  prayer.31 

Closely  connected  with  this  subject  of  grace,  and  in  one 
sense  forming  a  part  of  it,  is  the  question  of  predestination. 
Did  God  by  an  act  of  His  sovereign  will  decree  from  all 
eternity  that  certain  definite  persons  should  infallibly  be  saved, 
whatever  may  be  said  of  the  rest  of  mankind?  And  if  so, 
was  He  directed  in  forming  this  decree  by  the  foreknowledge 
of  their  fidelity  to  grace,  or  did  He  decree  their  salvation  in 
dependently  of  this  foreknowledge?  In  either  case,  predesti 
nation  to  glory  necessarily  implies  predestination  to  efficacious 
graces,  as  without  them  salvation  is  never  actually  attained. 
On  the  other  hand,  predestination  to  grace  does  not  necessarily 
imply  predestination  to  glory,  since  grace  may  be  sufficient 
without  being  efficacious. 

Augustine's  teaching  on  this  subject  is  not  as  clear  as  might 
be  desired;  and  according  to  many  critics,  he  was  not  always 

27  Ibid.  2.  30  Ep.  194,  9 ;  De  Perfect.  Justit. 

28  De  Praedest  SS.  8,  16.  Horn.  17. 

29  Serm.   169,  2. ;   cfr.   Retract.   I,         31  Cont.  Duas  Epist  Pelag.  3,  23. 

22. 


378    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

consistent  in  explaining  his  views.  Up  to  412,  when  he  began 
his  discussion  with  the  Pelagians,  he  held  that  even  after  the 
fall  God  sincerely  willed  all  men  to  be  saved,  although  He 
foreknew  that  some,  through  failure  of  corresponding  with 
His  grace,  would  not  actually  attain  salvation.  Hence  God 
did  indeed  predestinate  some  to  glory,  but  only  post  praevisa 
merita;  guided,  therefore,  by  His  foreknowledge  of  their 
fidelity  to  grace.  On  this  point  most  critics  are  agreed.  But 
it  is  contended  that  Augustine  later  on  changed  his  mind,  ow 
ing  to  the  position  taken  by  the  Pelagians,  who  denied  pre 
destination  altogether  and  held  that  salvation  depended  solely 
on  man's  free  will.  On  the  other  hand,  not  a  few  of  the  more 
recent  critics  hold  that  Augustine  was  consistent  throughout, 
and  that  he  taught  predestination  post  praevisa  merita  up  to 
the  end  of  his  life.32  A  general  outline  of  his  thoughts  on  the 
subject  may  be  given  as  follows : 

i°.  From  all  eternity  God  chose  His  elect  and  predestinated 
them  to  heaven :  "  And  how  could  He  choose  those  who  as  yet 
were  not,  except  by  predestinating  them?  Therefore  predesti 
nating  He  chose  them."  33  This  predestination  on  the  part  of 
God  is  always  effective:  "Of  them  no  one  perishes,  because 
all  are  chosen.  If  any  of  them  were  to  perish,  God  would  be 
deceived;  but  no  one  of  them  perishes,  because  God  is  not 
deceived."  34 

2°.  Predestination  implies  the  following  gifts  and  graces: 
First,  a  call  to  faith  that  is  efficacious,  or  that  actually  leads 
to  the  embracing  of  the  faith;  secondly,  justification  by  means 
of  efficacious  graces,  so  that  persons  thus  predestinated  may  be 
"  holy  and  immaculate  in  the  sight  of  God  " ;  thirdly,  final 
perseverance,  at  least  in  the  sense  that  moral  faults  are  re 
paired  at  the  hour  of  death;  fourthly,  actual  bestowal  of  the 
crown  of  life.35 

3°.  To  the  predestination  of  the  elect  corresponds  the  repro 
bation  of  those  who  are  lost;  with  this  difference,  however, 

82  Cfr.  E.  Portalie,  Dictionnaire  34  De  Corrept.  et  Grat.  14,  23,  24. 

de  Theologie  Catholique,  239^2407 ;  35  De  Praedest.  SS.  37,  36;  De 

Tixeront,  H.  D.  II,  491  sqq.  Corrept.  et  Grat.  16,  21,  22. 

33  De  Praedest,  SS.  35. 


SEMI-PELAGIANISM  379 

that  God  does  not  induce  the  reprobate  to  commit  sin  as  He 
leads  the  elect  to  practice  virtue.  God  decrees  eternal  damna 
tion  as  a  just  punishment  of  their  sins,  but  does  not  decree  the 
sins  of  which  eternal  damnation  is  a  just  punishment.  It  has 
been  said  that  in  Augustine's  view  reprobation  is  a  preterition 
or  omission  in  the  decree  of  predestination,  a  sort  of  negative 
reprobation.36  But  this  interpretation  of  the  Holy  Doctor's 
teaching  cannot  be  sustained.  It  is  true  enough  that  because 
of  original  sin  he  regards  all  mankind  as  a  "  massa  damnata," 
"  massa  peccati,"  "  massa  perditionis,"  from  which  God  needed 
not  have  separated  any  one ;  but  he  also  tells  his  readers,  "  you 
have  received  the  power  to  stand  at  the  right  hand  of  God; 
that  is,  to  be  made  the  sons  of  God; "  37  "  it  is  now  in  your 
power  to  choose  which  of  the  two  (elect  or  reprobate)  you 
wish  to  be ;  choose  whilst  there  is  time."  38  Hence  he  neces 
sarily  supposes  that  God  gives  to  everyone  sufficient  grace  to 
avoid  reprobation.  If,  therefore,  some  do  become  reprobate, 
is  not  simply  because  God  passed  them  by,  but  because  they 
failed  to  correspond  with  the  graces  which  the  merciful  God 
placed  at  their  disposal. 

B  —  SEMI-PELAGIANISM 

Augustine's  teaching  on  the  necessity  of  interior  grace  for 
the  performance  of  salutary  actions  was  adopted  by  the  synod 
of  Carthage  and  approved  by  the  Pope.  Also  many  of  his 
particular  views  on  grace,  though  passed  over  by  the  synod, 
were  accepted  by  his  contemporaries;  but  others  were  called 
in  question  and  even  severely  criticised.  Four  years  before 
his  death,  the  reading  of  his  iQ4th  letter  caused  such  a  com 
motion  in  the  monastery  of  Adrumetum  in  Byzacene,  that  he 
found  it  necessary  to  explain  his  position  on  the  question  of 
grace  and  free  will.  Thus  originated  the  two  treatises,  De 
Gratia  et  Libero  Arbitrio  and  De  Correptione  et  Gratia,  which 
were  sent  to  the  monks  and  seem  to  have  restored  peace  to  the 
community. 

Much  more  serious  trouble,  however,  was  started  a  little 

36Cfr.   Tixeront,    H.    D.    II,    500          37  In  Ps.  120,  u. 
sqq.  38  In  Ps.  36,  Serm.  I,  I. 


380    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

later  in  Southern  Gaul,  where  John  Cassian,  abbot  of  Saint 
Victor  at  Marseilles,  stood  out  strongly  for  the  rights  and 
power  of  free  will  under  the  action  of  grace.  A  disciple  of 
Chrysostom  and  deeply  imbued  with  the  theology  of  the  East, 
he  looked  with  suspicion  at  the  absolute  dominance  of  grace 
as  apparently  taught  by  Augustine.  He,  like  other  Eastern 
theologians,  maintained  indeed  the  necessity  of  grace;  but  at 
the  same  time  strongly  emphasized  the  freedom  of  the  will. 
"  If  God  does  everything,"  he  was  fond  of  saying,  "  where 
is  our  merit?  And  if  we  can  do  nothing  without  grace,  what 
becomes  of  our  liberty?"  He  was  a  strong  and  outspoken 
opponent  of  Pelagianism,  and  vigorously  defended  the  neces 
sity  of  grace  for  all  salutary  actions;  but  whilst  defending 
grace,  he  did  not  wish  to  see  man's  free  will  sacrificed,  and 
that,  he  thought,  had  been  done  by  the  bishop  of  Hippo.  His 
own  views  he  brought  out  in  his  thirteenth  conference,  entitled, 
De  Protectione  Dei,  which  appeared  sometime  before  426, 
The  following  are  his  main  contentions: 

i°.  A  liberty  that  does  not  allow  man  to  will  and  to  do 
good  "  ex  semetipso,"  by  his  own  natural  power,  is  not  liberty 
in  the  true  sense.  As  a  fact,  however,  God  in  dispensing  His 
graces  sometimes  demands  and  waits  for  our  own  efforts,  and 
therefore  the  free  will  contributes  something  of  its  own.39 

2°.  God  calls  men  in  various  and  different  ways;  but  of 
whatever  kind  God's  calling  may  be,  man  can  of  himself  resist 
or  follow  it;  the  beginning  of  faith  is  thus  placed  in  his  own 
power.  Hence  grace  is  an  auxilium  sine  quo  non  volumus , 
and  not  an  auxilium  quo  volumus  as  Augustine  conceived  it. 
Grace  calls,  solicits,  inclines  the  will  to  act,  but  it  does  not  give 
the  very  power  to  will  and  to  begin  the  good  work.  We  can 
of  ourselves  think  of  and  desire  the  good;  we  can  of  our 
selves  follow  the  divine  call,  although  without  grace  we  cannot 
realize  the  good  we  conceive  or  perfect  the  salutary  work  we 
begin.40 

3°.  On  the  other  hand,  however,  the  grace  of  God  is  en 
tirely  gratuitous;  the  Pelagians  are  altogether  in  the  wrong 
when  they  teach  that  men  can  of  themselves  merit  grace ;  nay, 

89  De  Protect.  Dei.  12,  13.  40  Ibid.  14,  12,  13. 


SEMI-PELAGIANISM  381 

even  between  the  good  actions  performed  under  the  influence 
of  grace  and  the  final  reward  there  is  no  strict  proportion ;  the 
gratuitous  mercy  of  God  has  its  part  in  all.41 

4°.  As  regards  salvation,  presupposing  of  course  the  help 
of  God's  grace,  that  depends  finally  on  our  own  will.  God 
intends  the  salvation  of  all  men,  and  it  is  a  horrible  blasphemy 
to  maintain  the  contrary.  There  is  no  such  a  thing  as  pre- 
destinatio  ante  praevisa  merita;  for  grace  is  given  indifferently 
to  all  and  it  is  only  the  use  or  abuse  of  grace  that  is  finally  re 
sponsible  for  man's  eternal  salvation  or  damnation.  In  this 
sense,  therefore,  salvation  depends  on  our  own  efforts.  We 
can  always  correspond  with  the  grace  of  God,  which  is  given 
us,  gratuitously  indeed,  but  also  infallibly.  Even  final  per 
severance  is  in  our  hands,  since  God's  part  in  it  is  assured  by 
the  bestowal  of  the  first  grace.42 

5°.  If  it  be  objected  that  grace  is  not  given  indifferently 
to  all,  because  to  some  the  Gospel  is  never  preached,  and  others, 
as  is  the  case  with  many  infants,  die  before  they  have  an  oppor 
tunity  of  receiving  baptism,  the  answer  is  that  God  was  fully 
prepared  to  give  them  grace,  but  foreseeing  the  evil  use  these 
persons  would  make  of  it,  He  withheld  it  on  account  of  their 
own  demerits.  Hence  there  is  nothing  arbitrary  in  the  actions 
of  God  —  there  is  no  predestination  and  no  reprobation  except 
in  consequence  of  men's  own  free  actions.43 

Owing  to  Cassian's  high  reputation  for  asceticism  and  learn 
ing,  and  by  reason  of  his  influential  position  as  abbot  of  a 
large  monastery,  his  teaching  soon  spread  far  and  wide  through 
Southern  Gaul.  However,  Augustine  was  not  without  friends 
and  defenders  in  that  same  region.  Prosper  of  Aquitaine,  a 
highly  educated  layman,  informed  him  of  what  was  going  on. 
He  replied  in  two  treatises,  De  Praedestinatione  Sanctorum  and 
De  Dono  Perseverantice;  but  as  they  did  not  have  the  desired 
effect,  Prosper  himself  took  up  his  pen  in  defense  of  his  beloved 
master.  However  in  his  various  writings  on  the  subject  he 
did  little  more  than  restate  and  enforce  Augustine's  teaching. 
A  few  of  the  points  he  advances  may  here  be  presented. 

41  Ibid.  13,  16.  Prosp.  Ep.  226,  4. 

42  Ibid.    13,    7,    17,    18;    17,    25;          «  Ibid.  2,  5,  3. 


382    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

The  contention  of  the  Calumniatores,  as  he  calls  Cassian  and 
his  followers,  that  man's  nature  and  free  will  have  not  been 
entirely  vitiated  by  sin,  that  he  is  of  himself  still  able  to  desire 
what  is  supernaturally  good,  and  that  he  can  pray  for  and  begin 
the  work  of  salvation,  all  this  is  simply  untrue  and  can  only 
be  met  with  a  blunt  denial.  Man  is  of  himself  absolutely  in 
capable  of  beginning  the  work  of  salvation;  his  free  will, 
unless  extricated  by  grace,  lies  helpless  in  an  abyss  of  evil  and 
is  under  the  power  of  the  devil.  He  cannot  go  to  God  except 
by  the  help  of  God,  nor  can  he  have  the  beginning  of  faith 
except  through  the  Holy  Spirit.44 

Their  further  contention  that  grace  is  sometimes  given  in 
view  of  a  man's  good  disposition  is  simply  a  restatement  of 
the  Pelagian  error;  their  claim  that  God  calls  men  indiscrim 
inately  goes  against  the  well  known  fact  that  many  never  hear 
the  message  of  salvation;  whilst  their  teaching  that  grace  is 
only  an  auxilium  sine  quo  non  is  utterly  false,  since  it  must 
give  us  the  very  power  to  do  good.45 

Then  what  the  Calumniatores  say  about  predestination  can 
not  be  admitted,  because  God  does  not  predestine  men  to  glory 
in  consideration  of  their  merits,  but  altogether  gratuitously  and 
independently  of  their  good  works :  "  Ut  et  qui  salvantur  ideo 
salvi  sint  quia  illos  voluit  Deus  salvos  fieri."  46  In  this  as  in 
most  other  points  the  author  simply  follows  Augustine's  view, 
but  with  regard  to  reprobation  he  is  more  explicit  in  stating  its 
true  nature.  For  the  reprobate,  he  says,  are  predestined  to 
damnation  in  consequence  of  God's  foreknowledge  of  their 
sins.47  They  are  not  simply  passed  by  in  the  decree  of  pre 
destination,  but  they  are  excluded  from  it  because  God  foresaw 
that  they  would  not  be  faithful  to  grace. 

This  defense  of  Augustine's  teaching  had  very  little  effect 
Cassian  disdained  to  answer,  whilst  Vincent  of  Lerins,  in  his 
Commonitorium,  continued  to  attack  Augustine  with  virulence, 
though  without  mentioning  his  name.  Then  Prosper  appealed 
to  Pope  Xystus  III,  but  obtained  no  satisfaction ;  and  thus  mat- 

44  Resp.  ad  Cap.  Gall.  6.  46  Sent,  super  Cap.  Gall.  9. 

45  De   Ingratis,  5,  287 ;   Resp.   ad          4?  Resp.  ad  Cap.  Gall.  3,  12. 
Cap.  Gall.  4,  5. 


SEMI-PELAGIANISM  383 

ters  remained  for  years.  Meanwhile,  however,  the  views  of 
the  Roman  Church  had  been  clearly  expressed  in  a  letter  of 
Pope  Celestine  to  the  bishops  of  Southern  Gaul,  in  431,  to 
which  was  attached  a  number  of  doctrinal  canons  issued  by 
former  Popes,  probably  by  Innocent  and  Zozimus.  These  con 
demn  the  chief  proposition  advanced  by  the  Semi-Pelagians, 
that  man  of  himself  can  desire,  will,  and  begin  a  salutary  work. 
Reference  is  also  made  to  other  points  of  the  controversy,  but 
they  are  put  summarily  aside  as  matters  about  which  it  does  not 
behoove  us  to  make  inquiries.48 

About  the  same  time  an  unknown  author  published  a  work 
under  the  title  De  Vocatione  Gentium,  which  threw  con 
siderable  light  on  the  matter  under  discussion.  Its  main  pur 
pose  was  to  reconcile  the  fact  of  reprobation  with  the  salvific 
will  of  God.  To  this  end  the  author  postulates  a  twofold  call : 
the  one  general,  which  is  extended  to  all  men  and  implies  ordi 
nary  graces,  and  the  other  special,  providing  for  graces  that 
are  foreseen  to  be  efficacious.  In  this  way  God  sincerely  wills 
the  salvation  of  all,  and  if  in  spite  of  this  some  are  lost,  the 
reason  is  to  be  sought  outside  of  God.  In  this  way,  too,  there 
is  a  real  predestination  of  the  elect,  in  as  much  as  God  by  a 
special  decree  gives  to  certain  persons  graces  which  He  fore 
knows  to  be  efficacious.  But  the  further  question,  why  these 
special  graces  are  given  to  some  and  not  to  others,  we  must 
leave  for  solution  to  the  all-wise  and  all-powerful  God. 

This  rather  clear  exposition  of  one  point  of  the  controversy, 
together  with  the  position  taken  by  Rome  in  regard  to  the 
other,  should  have  ended  the  discussion ;  but  apparently  neither 
the  one  nor  the  other  did  much  towards  setting  men's  minds 
at  rest.  After  the  death  of  Augustine  (430)  and  of  Cassian 
(435),  there  was  a  lull  of  about  fifty  years,  until  a  book 
written  by  Faustus  of  Riez  in  Languedoc,  De  Gratia  Libri 
Duo,  caused  the  dispute  to  break  out  anew.  Faustus  was  a 
learned  and  holy  man,  who  before  his  elevation  to  the  episco 
pate  had  been  abbot  of  Lerins,  for  some  time  past  a  strong 
hold  of  Semi-Pelagianism.  He  first  distinguished  himself  by 

«  P.  L.  50,  530. 


384    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

his  determined  stand  against  Predestinarianism,  which  was  ad 
vocated  by  Lucidus,  one  of  his  priests.  The  error  of  Lucidus, 
that  God  predestined  some  men  to  eternal  punishment,  in  the 
sense  that  He  did  not  give  them  sufficient  grace  to  work  out 
their  salvation,  was  condemned  by  the  Synods  of  Aries  and 
Lyons  in  472  and  474.  It  was  at  the  instance  of  these  Synods 
that  Faustus  composed  his  two  books  on  grace. 

Concerning  the  doctrine  contained  in  this  work,  critics  are 
not  agreed.  Some  regard  the  author  as  strongly  infected  with 
Semi-Pelagian  views,  whereas  others  consider  his  "  Semi-Pela 
gian  formulas  as  mere  verbal  exaggerations  against  Predestina 
rianism."  Whilst  resolutely  rejecting  the  errors  of  Pelagius, 
he  at  the  same  time  anathematizes  any  one  who  says  that  Christ 
did  not  die  for  all  men,  or  does  not  will  the  salvation  of  all 
men,  or  that  those  who  perish  never  had  the  opportunity  of 
being  saved.  Let  men  put  their  free  will  to  good  use  and 
God's  grace  will  not  be  wanting,  nor  will  they  be  excluded  from 
the  number  of  the  elect  by  reason  of  predestination.  The 
assumption  that  God  gives  special  graces  to  some  and  denies 
them  to  others,  in  the  sense  that  He  wills  the  former  to  be 
saved  and  passes  by  the  latter,  is  altogether  untenable. 

The  views  of  Faustus  seem  to  have  been  generally  accepted 
by  the  theologians  of  Southern  France,  and  in  the  early  part 
of  the  sixth  century  were  reproduced  in  the  works  of  Gen- 
nadius  of  Marseilles.  On  the  other  hand,  they  aroused  strong 
opposition  among  the  Scythian  monks  at  Constantinople.  In 
519  the  monks  applied  to  an  African  bishop,  then  tarrying  as 
an  exile  in  the  imperial  city,  for  information  concerning  the 
standing  of  Faustus.  The  bishop  laid  the  matter  before  Pope 
Hormisdas,  who  replied  in  somewhat  vague  terms  that  Faustus 
was  not  regarded  as  an  authority  of  special  weight,  and  that 
the  authentic  teaching  of  the  Church  on  the  question  of  grace 
might  be  ascertained  from  the  works  of  Augustine. 

This  reply  of  the  Pope  did  not  satisfy  the  monks,  and  there 
upon  they  consulted  the  African  bishops  who  had  shortly  be 
fore  been  exiled  to  Sardinia.  The  latter  entered  a  vigorous 
protest  against  the  teaching  of  Faustus.  Their  answer  to  the 
monks  was  written  by  Fulgentius,  bishop  of  Ruspe.  In  this 


SEMI-PELAGIANISM  385 

letter,  and  in  three  other  works  which  he  wrote  before  his 
return  to  Africa  in  523,  he  strongly  defended  the  teaching  of 
St.  Augustine.  He  took  up  the  matter  again  in  a  subsequent 
work,  De  Veritate  Prcedestinationis  et  Gratia  Dei,  and  also 
in  a  letter  written  in  the  name  of  a  synod  of  twelve  bishops, 
whom  the  Scythian  monks  had  again  consulted.  In  these  two 
productions  also,  he  adheres  closely  to  Augustine's  views,  and 
regards  the  teaching  of  Faustus,  especially  on  predestination, 
as  untenable. 

The  efforts  of  Fulgentius  produced  no  more  effect  than  those 
of  Prosper  had  done  almost  a  century  before.  Finally,  how 
ever,  the  controversy  was  brought  to  a  close  by  the  intervention 
of  Caesarius  of  Aries.  He  first  had  the  matter  considered  by  a 
synod  held  at  Valence,  probably  in  527,  and  then  sent  nineteen 
Capitula  Sancti  Augustini  to  Rome  for  approval.  Felix  IV, 
who  was  then  Pope,  sent  back  the  document  in  a  modified  form, 
having  struck  out  eleven  of  the  capitula  and  added  sixteen  new 
ones,  all  taken  from  the  Sent  entice  Augustini  collected  by  Pros 
per.  To  this  list  Csesarius  added  one  proposition,  slightly 
changed  some  of  the  others,  and  then  presented  the  whole, 
together  with  a  profession  of  faith,  to  a  synod  gathered  at 
Orange,  in  July  529. 

When  the  bishops,  fourteen  in  number,  had  subscribed  the 
document,  Csesarius  sent  it  once  more  to  Rome,  in  order  to 
obtain  the  confirmation  of  the  Holy  See.  Pope  Felix  having 
meanwhile  died,  his  successor,  Boniface  II,  gave  his  approval 
in  a  letter  to  the  bishop  of  Aries.  He  confirmed  the  decrees 
of  the  synod  and  declared  the  profession  of  faith  to  be  "  con- 
sentanea  Catholicis  Patrum  regulis."  He  also  expressed  the 
hope  that  the  zeal  and  learning  of  Csesarius  would  soon  succeed 
in  bringing  back  those  who  had  strayed  from  the  right  path. 
This  hope  was  fully  realized ;  for  in  a  short  time  all  the  Gallic 
bishops  signified  their  adhesion  to  the  decisions  of  the  synod, 
and  Semi-Pelamianism  practically  disappeared  from  the  land. 

Thus  Augustinianism  triumphed,  though  not  all  of  its  views 
were  either  approved  or  accepted.  That  by  Adam's  sin  human 
nature  was  changed  for  the  worse  both  in  body  and  in  soul,  that 
this  sin  is  truly  transmitted  to  Adam's  descendants,  that  the 


386    FOURTH  CENTURY  DEVELOPMENTS 

beginning  of  faith  and  of  good  works  is  not  in  the  power  of 
man's  unaided  free  will,  that  grace  is  necessary  for  all  salu 
tary  actions,  that  merely  naturally  good  works  cannot  merit 
grace,  that  final  perseverance  must  be  obtained  by  prayer  — 
all  this  is  decided  and  approved ;  but  the  question  of  predestina 
tion  and  reprobation  is  passed  by  in  silence,  except  in  so  far 
as  anathema  is  pronounced  against  those  who  affirm  that  God 
predestines  some  men  to  sin.  It  is,  however,  explicitly  de 
clared  that  baptized  persons  can  and  must  unite  their  efforts 
to  divine  grace  in  working  out  their  salvation,  and  that  in  this 
sense  their  salvation  is  in  their  own  hands.49 

49  Mansi.  8,  712  sqq. 


CHAPTER  XXV 
THE  NESTORIAN  HERESY:    THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS1 

Whilst  the  West  was  thus  engaged  in  solving  such  practical 
questions  as  the  Constitution  and  Authority  of  the  Church,  the 
Nature  of  the  Sacraments,  the  Transmission  of  Original  Sin, 
and  the  Necessity  of  Grace,  the  East  continued  its  speculations 
on  certain  Christological  problems,  which  had  been  only  par 
tially  solved  during  the  fourth-century  controversies.  This 
soon  led  to  new  discussions.  Hardly  had  the  great  champions 
of  orthodoxy,  Athanasius,  the  two  Gregorys,  Basil,  and  Chry- 
sostom,  been  called  to  their  reward,  when  serious  difficulties 
arose  in  reference  to  the  union  between  the  human  and  divine 
elements  in  Christ,  and  also  about  Mary's  title  of  Theotokos 
as  implied  in  her  Divine  Motherhood.  The  Council  of  Nicsea 
had  defined  Christ's  true  divinity,  and  that  of  Constantinople 
had  declared  His  perfect  manhood;  but  neither  of  them  had 
given  a  direct  decision  as  to  what  manner  of  union  must  be 
admitted  between  His  humanity  and  His  Godhead,  or  in  what 
precise  relation  the  Virgin  stood  to  the  Son  of  God.  On  the 
other  hand,  however,  the  Church's  mind  on  both  points  had 
always  been  sufficiently  clear  to  guide  theologians  of  unswerv 
ing  loyalty  in  their  teaching;  and  hence  the  fourth-century 
Fathers  had  incidentally  discussed  them  with  all  the  assurance 
that  is  born  of  faith.  Still  for  such  as  were  less  well  disposed 
there  was  a  possible  occasion  of  going  astray,  and  so  new  errors 
arose  that  called  for  further  decisions  on  the  part  of  the 
Church. 

A  —  THE  NESTORIAN  HERESY 

The  Christological  error  usually  designated   as  the   Nes- 

1  Cfr.     Hefele,     History    of    the      chengeschichte,  I,  504-518;  Marion, 
Councils,   III,  4-115;   Tixeront,   H.       Histoire    de    1'Egfise,     I,    451-469; 
D.  Ill,  19-57;  *  Bethune-Baker,  op.      Schwane,  H.  D.  II,  480-534. 
cit.    255-270;    Hergenroether,    Kir- 

387 


388  CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

torian  Heresy,  because  it  was  first  openly  defended  by  Nes- 
torious,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  reaches  well  back  into 
the  fourth  century.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  the  chief  opponent 
of  Nestorius,  traced  it  to  Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  who  died  about 
390.  Diodorus  handed  it  on  to  his  disciple,  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suestia.  This  latter  was  a  staunch  opponent  of  Apollinarian- 
ism,  and  in  his  zeal  to  uphold  Christ's  perfect  humanity  he 
broached  views  that  were  inconsistent  with  the  Saviour's  unity 
of  person.  The  tendency  to  divide  Christ  was  more  or  less 
common  to  theologians  trained  in  the  Antiochene  school,  which 
had  always  emphasized  the  distinction  between  Christ's  hu 
manity  and  His  Godhead  rather  than  their  union.  It  was  in 
this  school  that  both  Theodore  and  Nestorius  were  trained. 

Theodore's  teaching  on  the  subject  comes  practically  to  this : 
The  union  of  the  Word  with  Christ's  human  nature  consists 
in  an  indwelling,  not  of  God's  being,  nor  of  His  power, 
but  of  His  cvSoKta,  complacency,  good  pleasure,  or  approval. 
God's  being  is  everywhere,  and  so  is  His  energizing  power; 
hence  neither  of  them  can  be  said  to  dwell  more  especially  in 
one  created  being  than  in  another;  but  His  complacency  or 
His  approval  may  terminate  differently  in  different  persons. 
This  divine  indwelling  may  therefore  be  more  or  less  perfect, 
according  to  God's  free  determination;  hence  whilst  it  is  in 
some  measure  found  in  every  just  man,  in  Christ  it  is  so 
perfect  that  it  widely  separates  Him  in  this  respect  from 
all  mankind.  Through  it  He  shares  in  all  the  honors  and  in 
the  worship  properly  due  to  God  alone. 

The  union  thus  effected  between  the  human  and  the  divine 
elements  in  Christ,  although  it  is  of  an  intimate  nature,  must 
not  be  conceived  as  a  commingling  or  composition,  but  rather 
as  a  conjunction  of  the  two  terms.  NThis  conjunction  began, 
in  accordance  with  the  divine  foreknowledge  of  the  Saviour's 
disposition,  with  the  first  formation  of  the  humanity  in  the 
Virgin's  womb,  and  in  after  life  manifested  itself  in  a  ready 
practice  of  virtue  and  a  determined  avoidance  of  sin.  Yet  it 
was  only  a  conjunction  of  distinct  elements,  not  a  union  in  the 
strict  sense  of  the  term. 

Christian  tradition  always  taught  the  oneness  of  person  in 


THE  NESTORIAN  HERESY  389 

Christ,  and  this  Theodore  also  admits,  but  he  explains  it  by 
saying :  "  The  two  terms  united  make  only  one  person  as 
man  and  wife  are  one  flesh.  If  we  consider  the  natures  in  their 
distinction,  we  must  define  the  nature  and  the  person  of  the 
Logos  as  perfect  and  complete,  and  also  the  nature  and  the 
person  of  the  man;  but  if  we  have  regard  to  the  union,  we 
must  say  that  there  is  only  one  person."  Hence  whilst  in  his 
belief  he  holds  fast  to  the  oneness  of  person  in  Christ,  in  his 
explanation  he  destroys  it  altogether. 

Consistency  required  him  to  do  away  with  the  communv- 
catio  idiomatum,  as  that  is  founded  on  the  hypostatic  union  in 
the  strict  sense  of  the  term ;  yet  he  retained  it  in  so  far  as  he 
admitted  a  participation  of  the  humanity  in  divine  honors  and 
worship.  In  other  respects  he  simply  set  it  aside.  It  was 
not  the  Son  of  God,  the  Logos  Incarnate,  who  suffered  and 
died  and  rose  from  the  dead ;  it  was  only  His  temple,  the  hu 
manity,  in  which  He  dwelt. 

For  the  same  reason  he  rejected  the  term  Theotokos  as 
applied  to  the  Blessed  Virgin.  "  Mary,"  he  says,  "  is  properly 
Christotokos,  not  Theotokos.  It  is  madness  to  say  that  God 
is  born  of  a  woman:  not  God,  but  the  temple  in  which  God 
dwells,  is  born  of  Mary."  When  reproached  that  thus  he  ad 
mitted  two  sons  of  God  in  Christ,  he  expressly  repudiated  the 
inference,  stating  that  through  the  indwelling  of  the  Logos  the 
human  nature  shares  in  the  same  divine  sonship.2 

All  this  is  pure  Nestorianism,  but  as  Theodore  was  primarily 
intent  upon  a  faithful  discharge  of  his  pastoral  duties,  his 
Christological  speculations  attracted  little  attention  except  in 
his  own  immediate  surroundings,  and  so  he  escaped  condemna 
tion  and  died  in  communion  with  the  Church.  Matters  took, 
however,  a  different  turn  with  his  pupil  Nestorius,  who  ven 
tured  to  preach  from  the  housetops  what  his  master  had  spoken 
more  or  less  in  secret. 

'Nestorius  was  at  first  a  monk  and  then  a  priest  at  Antioch, 
where  he  soon  became  favorably  known  as  an  ascetic  and  a 

2Cfr.  fragments  of  his  work  De      Eutychen,  P.  G.  86,  1267-1396;  also 
Incarnatione,  quoted  by  Leon  tins  in      P.  G.  66. 
his    treatise    Contra    Nestorium    et 


390          CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

preacher.  Owing  to  the  reputation  thus  gained,  he  was  in  428 
consecrated  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  and  on  assuming  his 
new  charge  evinced  great  zeal  for  the  purity  of  the  faith,  thus 
addressing  the  Emperor :  "  Give  me,  O  Emperor,  the  earth 
cleansed  from  heretics,  and  I  will  help  thee  in  the  wars  against 
the  Persians."  But  before  long  he  himself  was  condemned  as 
a  heretic. 

The  trouble  seems  to  have  started  when  his  chaplain,  Anas- 
tasius,  who  had  accompanied  him  from  Antioch,  began  to 
preach  against  the  use  of  the  term  Theotokos.  The  title  had 
been  in  common  use  for  a  long  time,  and  is  found  in  the  writ 
ings  of  Origen,  Alexander  of  Alexandria,  Athanasius,  Euse- 
bius,  and  many  others;  but  Anastasius  would  not  allow  it. 
"  Let  no  man/'  he  said,  "  call  Mary  Theotokos ;  for  Mary  was 
but  a  woman,  and  it  is  impossible  that  God  should  be  born  of 
a  woman."  3  As  this  caused  great  excitement  among  the  peo 
ple,  Nestorius  tried  to  defend  his  chaplain.  In  a  sermon 
preached  on  the  subject,  he  says :  "  They  ask  whether  Mary 
may  be  called  Theotokos.  But  has  God  then  a  mother?  In 
that  case  we  must  excuse  heathenism,  which  spoke  of  mothers 
of  the  gods ;  but  Paul  is  not  a  liar  when  he  says  of  the  Godhead 
of  Christ,  that  it  is  without  father,  without  mother,  without 
genealogy.  Mary  did  not  bear  God ;  the  creature  did  not  bear 
the  Creator,  but  the  man  who  is  the  instrument  of  the  Godhead. 
.  .  .  This  garment  of  which  He  makes  use  I  honor  for  the 
sake  of  Him  who  is  hidden  within  it,  and  is  inseparable  from 
it.  I  separate  the  natures  and  unite  the  reverence.  Consider 
what  this  means.  He  who  was  formed  in  the  womb  of  Mary 
was  not  God  Himself,  but  God  assumed  him,  and  because  of 
Him  who  assumes,  he  who  is  assumed  is  also  called  God/'  4 
Hence  Mary  may  be  called  Theodochos,  or  Christotokos,  but 
not  properly  Theotokos. 

As  regards  the  union' of  the  divine  and  the  human  elements 
in  Christ,  he  holds  that  it  must  be  understood  as  a  conjunction 
of  the  complete  and  perfect  natures;  an  indwelling  of  the 
Godhead  in  the  humanity,  resulting  in  a  moral  and  sympathetic 

3  Socrates,  Hist.  Eccl.  7,  32.  4  Adv.    Dei    Genitricem   Mariam ; 

cfr.  Hefele,  op.  cit.  p.  12. 


THE  NESTORIAN  HERESY  39* 

union  of  the  two.  "  One  thing  is  the  Logos  who  dwells  in  the 
temple  formed  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  another  is  the  temple 
itself,  differing  from  the  God  who  dwells  within  it."  Yet  this 
moral  and  sympathetic  union  suffices  to  make  the  two  natures, 
when  considered  precisely  as  united,  one  person.  "  He  who 
is  born  of  woman  is  not  pure  God  and  not  mere  man:  for 
the  manhood  which  is  born  is  united  with  the  Godhead." 
From  this  it  is  quite  clear  that  Nestorius,  like  Theodorus  before 
him,  tried  to  preserve  the  oneness  of  person  in  Christ,  but  his 
explanation  of  the  union  between  the  two  natures  made  all  his 
efforts  in  this  direction  futile. 

In  a  short  while  these  heterodox  views  began  to  spread,  and 
caused  not  a  little  apprehension  in  those  who  were  concerned 
about  the  purity  of  the  faith.  The  first  one  of  real  conse 
quence  to  raise  his  voice  in  defense  of  the  traditional  teaching 
of  the  Church  was  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  who  addressed  two 
strong  letters  to  Nestorius,  pointing  out  the  true  doctrine  and 
asking  him  to  correct  his  statements.  Although  at  first  evasive 
in  his  replies,  Nestorius  finally  cut  the  correspondence  short  by 
practically  telling  Cyril  that  he  would  do  much  better  if  he 
were  to  attend  to  his  own  affairs.  Meanwhile,  however,  he 
had  endeavored  to  gain  the  monks  of  Egypt  over  to  his  view. 
As  they  were  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Cyril,  the  latter  there 
upon  addressed  a  letter  to  them,  setting  forth  the  true  doctrine 
on  the  points  in  question.  A  few  extracts  will  be  sufficient  to 
show  us  the  drift  of  his  teaching. 

Reminding  them  that  the  great  Athanasius,  for  whom  they 
all  entertained  the  profoundest  reverence,  had  used  the  title 
Theotokos  quite  freely,  and  that  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Coun 
cil  of  Nicsea  clearly  teach  that  the  union  between  the  two  na 
tures  in  Christ  is  most  intimate,  he  exclaims :  "  Thus  then  I 
marvel  that  there  should  be  any  who  in  the  least  doubt  whether 
the  Holy  Virgin  ought  to  be  called  Mother  of  God.  For  if 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  God,  how  is  the  Holy  Virgin,  who 
brought  Him  forth,  not  the  Mother  of  God?  .  .  .  But  per 
haps  you  will  say  this :  Is  then  the  Virgin,  tell  me,  the  mother 
of  the  divinity?  To  this  we  reply  that  the  living  and  sub 
sisting  Word  was  truly,  without  controversy,  begotten  of  the 


392          CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

very  essence  of  God  and  the  Father,  and  had  His  being  without 
beginning  in  time,  always  coexisting  with  the  Father,  in  Him 
and  with  Him  abiding  and  conceived;  but  that  in  these  latter 
times,  when  He  was  made  flesh,  that  is,  when  He  was  united 
to  a  body  informed  by  a  rational  soul,  He  was  also  according 
to  the  flesh  born  of  a  woman."  5 

The  union  of  the  divine  and  the  human  in  Christ,  and  the 
birth  of  God's  own  Son  of  a  human  mother,  he  illustrates  by 
an  analogy  drawn  from  the  birth  of  human  beings  in  general. 
What  is  born  of  the  mother  is  neither  the  body  nor  the  soul  of 
the  child,  taken  separately,  but  the  two  together  as  united  in 
oneness  of  nature  and  person.  Moreover  the  soul  in  itself  is 
incapable  of  being  born;  it  is  only  its  union  with  the  body, 
derived  from  the  parents,  that  enables  it  to  be  born  along  with 
the  body.  Similarly  the  Logos,  because  of  its  union  with  hu 
man  nature,  is  born  along  with  human  nature ;  and  this  Logos 
Incarnate  is  thus  both  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Son  of  the 
Virgin.6 

As  this  letter  soon  found  its  way  to  Constantinople,  a  new 
correspondence  ensued  between  the  two  patriarchs,  which  was 
carried  on  with  considerable  bitterness  on  the  part  of  Nes- 
torius.  The  latter  also  wrote  to  Pope  Celestine,  asking  for 
information  concerning  certain  Pelagian  bishops,  and  stating 
that  a  new  heresy  had  sprung  up  in  the  East,  which  seemed  to 
be  a  mixture  of  Apollinarianism  and  Arianism.7  By  this,  of 
course,  he  meant  the  teaching  of  Cyril.  He  likewise  induced 
certain  Alexandrians,  who  had  been  punished  by  Cyril  for  their 
moral  excesses,  to  lodge  a  complaint  against  their  patriarch 
with  the  Emperor.  In  a  letter  of  remonstrance  written  on  this 
account,  Cyril  again  took  occasion  to  explain  his  teaching  con 
cerning  the  points  under  dispute.  "  The  Word,"  he  said,  "  did 
not  become  flesh  in  such  a  manner  that  God's  nature  had  been 
changed  or  transformed  into  a  body  or  soul :  on  the  contrary, 
the  Logos  had  hypostatically  united  with  Himself  the  body 
animated  by  a  rational  soul,  and  thus  had,  in  an  inexplicable 
manner,  become  man.  .  .  .  The  two  distinct  natures  had  been 

5  Epist.  ad  Monachos  Aegypti,  I,         6  Ibid.  cc.  18,  19. 
I,  P.  G.  77,  13,  21.  7  Mansi,  4,  1021,  1023. 


THE  NESTORIAN  HERESY  393 

united  into  a  true  unity,  and  from  both  one  Christ  and  one 
Son  had  come,  not  as  though  the  difference  of  the  natures  had 
been  done  away  by  the  union,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  they 
constituted  the  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  Son  by  the  unutter 
able  union  of  the  Godhead  and  the  manhood."  8 

About  the  same  time  Cyril  addressed  also  a  letter  to  the 
Emperor,  Theodosius  II,  another  to  his  sister  Pulcheria,  who 
held  the  rank  of  Augusta,  and  a  third  to  the  Empress  Eudocia, 
in  each  of  which  he  gave  a  full  exposition  of  the  doctrine  as 
taught  by  the  Church.  Then,  as  nothing  further  could  be 
accomplished,  he  forwarded  his  correspondence  with  Nestorius 
to  the  Pope,  entreating  him  to  settle  the  dispute. 

Thus  fully  informed  concerning  the  troubles  that  disturbed 
the  Eastern  Church,  Celestine  gathered  some  forty  bishops  in 
council,  and  after  a  careful  examination  of  the  several  letters 
submitted  to  him,  he  condemned  Nestorius  as  a  heretic,  threat 
ening  him  with  deposition  unless  he  retracted  his  errors  within 
ten  days  from  the  time  he  received  the  Papal  sentence.  At 
the  same  time  he  also  sent  a  letter  to  the  church  of  Con 
stantinople,  to  John  of  Antioch,  and  to  Cyril  of  Alexandria, 
setting  forth  the  reasons  for  the  condemnation.  Furthermore, 
he  appointed  Cyril  as  his  representative,  with  strict  orders  to 
execute  the  sentence  in  case  Nestorius  refused  to  retract.9 
John  of  Antioch,  who  had  been  a  fellow  student  of  Nestorius 
and  was  his  intimate  friend,  tried  to  induce  him  to  make  the 
required  retractation,  urging  that  the  term  Theotokos  was  in 
perfect  accord  with  Holy  Scripture  and  tradition;  but  Nes 
torius,  relying  on  the  support  of  the  Emperor,  answered  in 
evasive  terms  and  then  appealed  to  a  general  council.10 

Meanwhile  Cyril  called  a  synod  of  his  suffragans  at  Alex 
andria,  to  draw  up  a  formula  of  belief  which  Nestorius  was 
to  subscribe  if  he  decided  to  submit  to  the  judgment  of  the 
Pope.  The  formula  begins  with  the  Nicene  Creed,  then  clearly 
explains  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  hypostatic  union,  and 
closes  with  twelve  anathematisms,  which  sum  up  the  contents 
of  the  document  and  anathematize  any  one  who  presumes  to 

8  Cfr.  Hefele,  op.  cit.  p.  21.  10  Ibid.  4,  1061 ;  4,  752. 

9  Mansi,  4,  550,  1017-1047. 


394          CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

hold  contrary  views.11  A  committee,  consisting  of  two  Egyp 
tian  bishops  and  two  of  the  Alexandrian  clergy,  was  then  sent 
to  Constantinople,  with  full  authority  to  adjust  matters  in 
accordance  with  the  decision  of  the  Pope.  The  synodal  letter, 
together  with  the  documents  from  Rome  were  publicly  de 
livered  to  Nestorius,  but  he  refused  to  give  an  answer.  Instead 
he  tried  to  gain  the  Emperor  over  to  his  side,  and  when  he 
was  fairly  sure  of  being  safe  on  that  point,  he  replied  to  the 
anathematisms  of  Cyril  and  the  Alexandrian  synod  by  issuing 
twelve  counter-propositions,  which  either  rejected  the  doctrine 
of  Cyril  or  evaded  the  issue.12  The  most  important  of  the  two 
sets  of  propositions  are  the  following: 

i°.  Cyril:  If  any  one  does  not  confess  that  Emmanuel  is 
true  God,  and  that  therefore  the  Holy  Virgin  is  Theotokos, 
since  she  bore,  after  the  flesh,  the  Incarnate  Son  of  God;  let 
him  be  anathema. 

Nestorius:  If  any  one  says  that  Emmanuel  is  true  God, 
and  not  rather  God  with  us  ...  ;  and  if  any  one  calls  Mary 
the  mother  of  the  Logos,  and  not  rather  the  mother  of  Him 
who  is  Emmanuel  ...  ;  let  him  be  anathema. 

3°.  Cyril:  If  any  one  separates  the  hypostases  (natures) 
as  to  their  unity  in  Christ,  connecting  them  only  by  a  conjunc 
tion  in  dignity,  power  and  appearance,  and  not  rather  by 
conjunction  in  physical  union;  let  him  be  anathema. 

Nestorius:  If  any  one  says  that  Christ,  who  is  also  Em 
manuel,  is  one  not  (merely)  in  consequence  of  the  conjunction, 
but  (also)  in  nature,  and  does  not  acknowledge  the  conjunc 
tion  of  the  two  natures,  that  of  the  Logos  and  that  of  the  as 
sumed  manhood,  as  still  continuing  without  mingling;  let  him 
be  anathema. 

12°.  Cyril:  If  any  one  does  not  confess  that  the  Word  of 
God  suffered  in  the  flesh,  was  crucified  in  the  flesh,  and  tasted 
death  in  the  flesh,  and  became  the  first-born  from  the  dead, 
since  He  as  God  is  life  and  the  life-giver;  let  him  be  anathema. 

Nestorius:  If  any  one,  in  confessing  the  sufferings  of  the 
flesh,  ascribes  them  also  to  the  Logos  of  God,  as  to  the  flesh  in 

11  Ibid.  4,  1081  sqq.  12  Ibid.  4,  1099  sqq. 


THE  NESTORIAN  HERESY 


395 


which  He  appeared,  and  thus  does  not  distinguish  the  dignity 
of  the  natures ;  let  him  be  anathema. 

One  glance  at  these  propositions  suffices  to  show  the  funda 
mental  difference  between  the  teaching  of  Cyril  and  that  of 
Nestorius.  Whilst  Cyril  affirms  the  Divine  Motherhood  of 
Mary,  the  intrinsic  union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ,  and 
the  communicatio  idiomatum,  Nestorius  flatly  denies  all  of 
them,  and  thereby  necessarily  rends  the  one  Christ  in  two.  It 
is  not  merely  a  casual  difference  of  view-points,  but  an  essen 
tial  difference  of  doctrine.  Cyril  represents  the  traditional 
teaching  of  the  Church,  although  he  expresses  it  at  times  some 
what  obscurely;  Nestorius  advances  the  extreme  speculations 
of  a  particular  school,  and  in  doing  so  often  confuses  the 
issue  so  as  not  to  oppose  openly  the  current  of  accepted  tra 
dition.  He  may  have  been  a  good  man  and  perhaps  even  sin 
cere  in  his  contentions,  but  in  that  case  he  was  a  singularly 
incompetent  theologian. 

Harnack  in  his  History  of  Dogmas  tries  to  show  that  the 
Christology  of  Nestorius  was  identical  with  that  of  the  West 
ern  Church,  and  that  Pope  Celestine  through  political  motives 
denied  his  own  belief  in  order  to  endorse  the  views  of  Cyril. 
To  substantiate  this  assertion  he  cites  from  the  second  letter 
of  Nestorius  to  the  Pope  the  following  passage :  "  Utraque 
natura  quae  per  conjunctionem  summam  et  inconfusam  in  una 
persona  unigeniti  adoratur."  13  "  This,"  he  states,  "  was  es 
sentially  the  Occidental  formula;  Celestine  himself  knew  of 
nothing  else."  14  True,  "  this  was  essentially  the  Occidental 
formula,"  as  far  as  appearances  go;  but  in  objective  signifi 
cance,  as  understood  by  Nestorius,  it  had  nothing  in  common 
with  Occidental  teaching.  If  the  reader  will  turn  back  to  the 
chapter  on  Christology,  "  The  Word  Incarnate,"  he  will  find 
ample  proof  that  the  Latins  understood  the  union  of  the  two 
natures  in  the  same  sense  as  Cyril  did,  and  that  they  had  no 
hesitation  whatever  about  calling  Mary  the  Mother  of  God. 
And  what  these  fourth-century  writers  held,  that  was  also 
held  by  Celestine.  He  did  not  deny  his  belief  "  through  politi- 

13Epist.  2,  ad  Coelest.  Mansi,  4,         14  Op.    cit.    II,    356    sqq.    Fourth 
1024.  Germ.  Ed. 


396  CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

cal  motives,"  but  was  intent  upon  safeguarding  the  faith  that 
had  been  delivered  to  him. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  his  opposition  to  Cyril,  Nestorius  did 
not  stand  alone;  he  was  supported  by  the  Antiochene  school 
in  general,  and  more  particularly  by  John  of  Antioch,  Andrew 
of  Samosata,  and  the  famous  Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  all  of  whom 
thought  they  detected  in  Cyril's  writings,  and  especially  in  the 
third  and  twelfth  anathematisms,  a  restatement  of  Apollinarian 
errors.  They  interpreted  the  physical  union  of  the  two  natures 
affirmed  Cyril,  and  his  ascription  of  the  Saviour's  sufferings 
and  death  to  the  Incarnate  Word,  as  a  denial  of  the  distinction 
of  the  united  natures  in  Christ.  Cyril  answered  them  by 
pointing  out,  what  should  have  been  sufficiently  evident  from 
his  previous  letters  on  the  subject,  that  by  the  physical  union 
he  merely  understood  a  true  union  as  opposed  to  the  mechanical 
conjunction  held  by  Nestorius,  and  that  the  sufferings  and 
death  of  the  Incarnate  Word  physically  affected  only  His 
human  nature,  but  by  reason  of  the  hypostatic  union  were 
rightly  ascribed  to  His  divine  person.  This  explanation  failed 
to  satisfy  his  opponents,  but  the  reason  of  this  failure  was 
personal  rather  than  doctrinal. 

B — 'THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

In  order  to  put  an  end  to  these  contentions,  the  Emperors 
Theodosius  II  and  Valentinian  III,  acting  with  the  consent  of 
the  Pope,  made  preparation  to  summon  a  general  council, 
which  should  meet  at  Ephesus.  The  summons  was  issued  in 
November,  430,  and  the  date  for  the  first  meeting  was  set  for 
Pentecost,  431.  About  a  month  before  the  council  was  to 
meet,  the  Pope  informed  the  Emperors  that  he  could  not  ap 
pear  in  person,  but  would  send  his  legates.  He  appointed  the 
two  bishops  Arcadius  and  Projectus,  together  with  the  priest 
Philip,  directing  them  to  support  Cyril,  but  at  the  same  time 
to  safeguard  the  dignity  of  the  Apostolic  See.  In  a  letter 
which  the  legates  presented  to  the  council,  he  says :  "  The 
legates  are  to  be  present  at  the  transactions  of  the  synod,  and 
will  give  effect  to  that  which  the  Pope  has  long  ago  decided 
with  regard  to  Nestorius ;  for  he  has  no  doubt  that  the  assem- 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS  397 

bled  bishops  will  agree  with  this."  A  special  letter  had  been 
sent  by  the  Emperors  to  Augustine  of  Hippo,  but  he  had  died 
some  months  before.  Candidian  and  Irenaeus,  two  imperial 
counts,  were  commissioned  to  preserve  order. 

Nearly  200  bishops,  mostly  from  the  East,  were  present 
on  the  appointed  day,  June  7,  431;  but  John  of  Antioch 
with  his  forty  suffragans  was  still  loitering  on  the  way. 
When  after  five  days  of  waiting  he  failed  to  appear,  although 
he  was  in  the  neighborhood,  the  bishops  concluded  that  he  did 
not  wish  to  be  present  at  the  condemnation  of  his  friend,  and 
so  they  opened  the  synod  without  him.  Nestorius  was  sum 
moned  three  times  to  present  himself  before  the  council  and 
answer  the  charge  of  heresy,  but  protected  by  Candidian  he 
refused  to  come.  His  case,  therefore,  had  to  be  adjusted  in 
his  absence. 

During  the  first  session  the  second  letter  of  Cyril  to  Nes 
torius  was  read,  together  with  the  latter's  answer,  whereupon 
the  whole  assembly  cried  out :  "  We  all  anathematize  the  im 
pious  Nestorius."  Then,  to  submit  the  doctrinal  points  at 
issue  to  a  thorough  examination,  a  number  of  passages  from 
the  writings  of  the  Fathers  were  presented,  which  were  found 
to  be  in  perfect  agreement  with  the  doctrine  as  explained  by 
Cyril  in  his  letter  to  Nestorius.  These  passages  were  taken 
from  Peter  of  Alexandria  (+311),  Athanasius  (+  373  )» 
Basil  (+  379),  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  (+  390),  Gregory  of 
Nyssa  (+  394),  Theophilus  of  Alexandria  (+412),  Atticus 
of  Constantinople  (+  426),  Cyprian  of  Carthage  (258),  Pope 
Felix  I  (+274),  Pope  Julius  I  (+352),  and  Ambrose  of 
Milan  (-J-  397).  This  was  the  first  time  that  the  argument 
from  the  Fathers  was  introduced  into  the  discussions  of  a 
general  council,  although  in  local  synods  and  controversies  it 
had  often  been  invoked  before. 

In  opposition  to  these  passages  there  were  next  read  some 
twenty  extracts  from  the  writings  of  Nestorius,  in  which  His 
heterodox  views  were  clearly  expressed.  Further  discussion 
seemed  superfluous,  especially  as  the  Pope  had  directed  the 
council  simply  to  execute  the  sentence  already  pronounced  by 
himself.  Hence  a  decree  of  deposition  was  drawn  up,  which 


398          CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

concluded  with  the  words :  "  Urged  by  the  canons,  and  in 
accordance  with  the  letter  of  our  most  Holy  Father  Celestine, 
the  Roman  Bishop,  we  have  come,  with  many  tears,  to  this 
sorrowful  sentence  against  him,  namely,  that  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  whom  he  has  blasphemed,  decrees  by  the  holy  Synod 
that  Nestorius  be  excluded  from  the  episcopal  dignity,  and 
from  all  priestly  communion."  The  sentence  was  then  sub 
scribed  by  all  the  bishops  present. 

This  first  session  of  the  Council  lasted  from  early  in  the 
morning  till  late  at  night,  yet  the  whole  day  long  enormous 
crowds  of  the  faithful  were  waiting  at  the  doors  of  "  Holy 
Mary,"  the  church  in  which  the  session  was  held,  to  learn  the 
decision  of  the  bishops  on  a  matter  which  they  had  so  much  at 
heart.  When  at  last  the  doors  were  opened  and  the  result  of 
the  deliberation  was  announced,  the  people  shouted  for  joy, 
praised  the  holy  Synod,  and,  gathering  in  procession,  escorted 
the  bishops  with  torches  and  censers  to  their  dwellings.  The 
whole  city  was  illuminated,  and  there  was  joy  in  every  house, 
because  Holy  Mary  was  in  truth  Theotokos,  the  Mother  of 
God.  A  similar  demonstration  took  place  somewhat  later  at 
Constantinople.  These  popular  outbursts  show  perhaps  better 
than  anything  else  how  definite  a  shape  the  doctrine  under  dis 
cussion  had  assumed  in  the  belief  of  the  faithful.  At  the 
same  time  they  afford  an  instance  of  the  infallibility  of  the 
sensus  fidelium. 

A  few  days  later  John  of  Antioch  arrived,  accompanied  by 
his  forty  suffragans.  When  he  learned  what  had  been  done, 
he  showed  himself  greatly  displeased  and  immediately  called 
a  meeting  of  his  own  bishops,  which  declared  the  first  session 
of  the  Council  irregular  and  void,  and  then  excommunicated 
Cyril  and  his  adherents.  All  attempts  on  the  part  of  the  coun 
cil  to  come  to  an  understanding  proved  fruitless,  as  John  was 
supported  by  the  Emperor's  representatives,  who  had  been 
instructed  to  sustain  Nestorius. 

Meanwhile,  however,  the  Council  continued  its  work.  It  fin 
ished  in  the  seventh  session,  when,  besides  issuing  six  canons 
in  reference  to  recalcitrant  prelates  and  priests,  it  also  drew  up 
a  circular  letter,  which  was  to  be  sent  to  all  the  churches.  In 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS  399 

this  letter  the  bishops  set  forth  that  the  Synod  had  pronounced 
excommunication  against  John  of  Antioch  and  the  bishops  who 
had  taken  his  part.  This  ended  the  Council,  but  not  the  dis 
pute. 

As  the  Emperor,  through  misunderstanding  rather  than 
through  ill  will,  supported  Nestorius  and  his  friends  against 
the  decision  that  had  been  given  by  the  assembled  bishops,  a 
deadlock  ensued  which  lasted  till  the  end  of  August.  Both 
parties  sent  appeals  to  the  court,  but  the  members  of  the  coun 
cil  could  obtain  no  hearing.  Their  opponents  so  far  prevailed 
on  the  Emperor  that  he  ordered  Cyril  of  Alexandria  and  Mem- 
non  of  Ephesus  to  be  deposed  from  their  sees  and  cast  into 
prison.  Finally,  however,  through  the  intervention  of  the 
monks  at  Constantinople  and  the  influence  of  Pulcheria,  the 
Emperor's  eyes  were  opened  to  the  true  state  of  things.  Then 
the  deposition  of  Nestorius  was  ratified,  and  Maximian,  a 
priest  of  Constantinople,  was  consecrated  in  his  stead.  After 
this  the  council  was  officially  dissolved,  Cyril  and  Memnon 
were  reinstated,  and  the  bishops  received  permission  to  return 
to  their  sees. 

Whilst  the  disputes  just  referred  to  were  going  on,  John 
and  his  followers  drew  up  a  formula  of  belief,  which  some 
time  later  became  the  means  of  reuniting  the  two  parties; 
hence  it  is  called  the  Union  Creed.  From  it  one  can  readily 
see  that  the  dissension  arose  from  personal  animosity  rather 
than  from  a  real  difference  in  faith.  The  part  referring  to 
the  points  then  under  discussion  reads  as  follows :  "  We 
acknowledge  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  only-begotten 
Son  of  God,  is  true  God  and  true  man,  consisting  (as  man) 
of  a  rational  soul  and  a  body;  that  He  was  born  before 
all  time  of  the  Father  as  to  His  Godhead,  and  was  in  the  end 
of  days,  for  us  and  for  our  salvation,  born  of  the  Virgin  as 
to  His  manhood,  of  one  substance  with  the  Father  in  respect 
to  His  Godhead,  and  of  one  substance  with  us  in  respect  to 
His  manhood.  For  the  two  natures  are  united  together,  and 
therefore  we  acknowledge  one  Christ,  one  Lord,  and  one  Son. 
On  account  of  this  union,  which  is  however  far  from  being  a 
mingling,  we  also  confess  that  the  Holy  Virgin  is  Theotokos, 


4OO 


CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 


because  God  the  Word  was  made  flesh,  and  by  the  incarnation, 
from  the  time  of  His  conception,  has  united  the  manhood  which 
He  assumed  of  her  with  Himself.''  This  ended  the  dispute 
between  Catholics,  but  as  a  separate  sect  Nestorianism  has 
survived  to  the  present  day. 


CHAPTER  XXVI 

THE  MONOPHYSITE  HERESY:    THE  COUNCIL  OF 
CHALCEDON 1 

Although  there  are  in  Christ  two  distinct  natures,  the  divine 
and  the  human,  yet  they  are  not  separated:  by  reason  of  the 
hypostatic  union  they  form  one  being,  one  person,  one  Christ, 
one  Son  of  God  Incarnate.  This  was  the  teaching  of  Cyril 
in  opposition  to  that  of  Nestorius,  and  this  teaching  was  dog 
matically  defined  by  Pope  Celestine  and  the  Council  of  Ephesus. 
But  even  before  the  death  of  Cyril,  which  occurred  in  444, 
some  of  his  followers  emphasized  the  union  to  such  an  extent 
that  the  human  element  in  Christ  seemed  more  or  less  absorbed 
by  the  divine.  This  view  found  its  fullest  expression  in  the 
heresy  of  Eutyches,  which  is  known  to  history  as  Monophysi- 
tism  or  Monophysism,  because  it  defends  the  oneness  of  nature 
in  Christ. 

A  —  THE  MONOPHYSITE  HERESY 

Eutyches  was  an  enthusiastic  follower  of  Cyril,  and  as 
archimandrite  or  abbot  of  an  important  monastery  near  Con 
stantinople  he  had  contributed  not  a  little  to  the  final  overthrow 
of  Nestorius.  In  448,  when  he  had  been  a  monk  for  more 
than  threescore  years,  he  was  accused  by  Eusebius  of  Dory-* 
Iseum,  his  former  friend,  of  Apollinarian  tendencies.  A  Synod 
of  some  thirty  bishops,  just  then  gathered  at  Constantinople 
by  the  Patriarch  Flavian,  summoned  him  to  clear  himself  of  the 
charge.  At  first  he  refused  to  come,  but  finally  he  was  pre 
vailed  upon  to  answer  the  summons. 

His  doctrinal  statements  before  the  Synod  were  too  vague 
and  guarded  to  be  satisfactory,  and  when  the  question  was 

iCfr.    Hefele,    History    of    the      D.     Ill,    76-94;    *  Bethune-Baker, 
Councils,  III,  285-449;  Tixeront,  H.      o.  c.  281-300. 

401 


402  CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

put  to  him:  "Do  you  confess  the  existence  of  two  natures 
even  after  the  incarnation,  and  that  Christ  is  consubstantial 
with  us  ?  "  he  tried  to  evade  the  issue.  This,  however,  did  not 
satisfy  his  questioners,  and  as  they  pressed  him  for  a  clear 
statement  of  his  belief,  he  replied :  "  I  confess  that  before  the 
union  (of  the  Godhead  and  manhood)  Christ  was  of  two 
natures,  but  after  the  union  I  confess  only  one  nature." 2 
Urged  to  conform  to  the  orthodox  teaching,  which  held  that 
the  two  natures,  though  hypostatically  united,  remained  never 
theless  distinct  after  the  union,  he  protested  that  for  peace 
sake  he  was  willing  to  do  so,  but  as  he  could  not  find  this  teach 
ing  either  in  Holy  Scripture  or  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers, 
he  could  not  pronounce  anathema  upon  the  opposite  doctrine. 
When  all  further  urging  proved  useless,  the  patriarch  in  the 
name  of  the  Synod  pronounced  sentence  of  deposition  and 
excommunication. 

Supported  by  the  Emperor,  Eutyches  now  set  to  work  to 
gain  the  people  of  Constantinople  over  to  his  side.  He  put 
up  placards  all  over  the  city,  setting  forth  the  justice  of  his 
cause.  Then,  to  secure  ecclesiastical  support,  he  sent  letters 
to  Alexandria,  Jerusalem,  Thessalonica,  and  Ravenna,  appeal 
ing  at  the  same  time  to  Pope  Leo  for  an  authoritative  decision 
and  for  protection.  Dioscorus  of  Alexandria  and  Juvenal  of 
Jerusalem  promised  their  support,  while  Peter  Chrysologus, 
bishop  of  Ravenna,  replied  that  he  could  do  nothing  in  the 
matter  without  the  consent  of  the  Pope.  Leo,  however,  re 
fused  to  intervene  until  he  had  heard  from  the  other  side. 

Meanwhile  Flavian  had  dispatched  a  letter  to  Rome,  fully 
explaining  the  situation.  This  enabled  Leo  to  take  the  matter 
in  hand,  and  he  did  so  without  delay.  He  notified  Flavian  that 
judgment  would  be  given,  and  sometime  later  he  sent  his 
famous  Epistola  Dogmatica  ad  Flavianum,  in  which  the  ortho 
dox  doctrine  was  clearly  set  forth  and  the  condemnation  of 
Eutyches  sustained.  In  the  introduction  he  points  out  that 
"the  very  Creed  itself  refutes  him  (Eutyches)  :  and  old  as 
he  is,  he  does  not  comprehend  what  every  catechumen  in  the 

2Mansi,  6,  744. 


THE  MONOPHYSITE  HERESY 


403 


world  confesses;  for  to  declare  belief  in  God  the  Father  all- 
ruling,  and  in  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  who  was  born  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  the  Virgin  Mary,  is  really  to  overthrow  the 
devices  of  almost  all  heretics."  Then  he  makes  the  following 
four  points : 

i°.  Christ  is  only  one  person:  the  Word  and  Christ  are  not 
two,  but  one  individual  being.  One  and  the  same  person  is 
truly  the  Son  of  God  and  truly  the  Son  of  man. 

2°.  In  that  one  person  are  two  natures,  the  divine  and  the 
human,  without  confusion,  without  mingling,  so  that  each 
nature  retains  undiminished  what  is  proper  to  itself. 

3°.  Each  one  of  the  two  natures  has  its  own  proper  activity, 
which,  however,  is  not  independent  of  the  other,  nor  outside  the 
union  which  is  permanent ;  but  nevertheless  it  is  an  activity  of 
which  the  nature  in  question  is  the  immediate  principle. 

4°.  From  the  unity  of  person  necessarily  follows  the  com- 
municatio  idiomatum,  so  that  what  is  proper  to  one  nature 
may  in  the  concrete  be  predicated  of  the  other.  Hence  also 
we  confess  in  the  Symbol  that  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God 
was  crucified  and  buried. 

Neither  Leo  nor  Flavian  desired  to  submit  the  matter  to  a 
council,  but,  without  consulting  them,  Theodosius  summoned 
the  bishops  of  the  Empire  to  meet  at  Ephesus.  Informed  of 
this,  the  Pope,  in  order  to  show  his  good  will,  gave  his  con 
sent,  and  chose  as  his  legates  Bishop  Julius  of  Puteoli,  a  priest 
by  the  name  of  Renatus,  and  the  deacon  Hilarius.  On  their 
departure  from  Rome  he  entrusted  to  them  a  letter  which  was 
to  be  read  at  the.  opening  of  the  Council.  In  this  he  strongly 
reminded  the  assembled  bishops  of  the  authority  of  the  Apos 
tolic  See  in  matters  of  faith. 

The  Council  met  in  August,  449,  with  Dioscorus  of  Alex 
andria  as  president.  He  was  attended  by  a  strong  body  of 
Egyptian  bishops  and  monks,  all  opposed  to  Flavian  and  Euse- 
bius  of  Dorylaeum.  They  behaved  in  a  manner  much  more 
becoming  a  frenzied  mob  than  a  deliberative  assembly  of 
churchmen.  Eusebius,  who  had  first  called  attention  to  the 
error  of  Eutyches,  was  accused  of  dividing  Christ.  "  Bury 
him  alive,"  they  shouted;  "as  he  has  divided  Christ,  so  let 


404  CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

him  be  divided  himself."  Flavian  was  mobbed  by  the  monks 
who  accompanied  Barsumas  of  Nisibis;  Dioscorus  refused  to 
have  the  letter  of  Leo  read,  and  the  statements  of  Eutyches 
were  received  with  applause.  The  Egyptians  asserted  boldly 
that  after  the  union  the  distinction  of  the  two  natures  no  longer 
existed,  and  the  outcome  of  it  all  was  that  Eutyches  was  de 
clared  orthodox  and  restored  to  his  ecclesiastical  dignity,  while 
all  his  opponents  were  deposed. 

Flavian  and  the  Roman  legates  protested  against  these  pro 
ceedings  but  they  had  to  flee  for  their  lives.  After  they  had 
departed,  a  blank  paper  was  handed  around  which  all  the 
bishops  present,  135  in  number,  were  forced  to  sign.  When 
this  had  been  done,  the  decisions  of  the  Council  were  recorded 
over  their  signatures.  When  Leo  was  informed  of  these  pro 
ceedings,  he  severely  denounced  the  action  of  Dioscorus  and 
designated  the  council  as  a  Latrocinium,  a  Robber  Synod,  by 
which  name  it  has  ever  since  been  known  in  history. 

The  Emperor,  however,  not  only  approved  the  work  of  the 
Council,  but  put  its  decisions  into  immediate  execution.  He 
denounced  all  opposing  bishops  as  Nestorians  and  sent  them 
into  exile.  Flavian  died  shortly  afterwards  and  was  succeeded 
by  Anatolius.  The  result  of  these  stringent  measures  was 
general  confusion  and  universal  dissatisfaction.  Egypt, 
Thrace,  and  Palestine  held  with  Dioscorus  and  the  Emperor; 
whilst  Syria,  Pontus,  and  Asia  protested  loudly  against  the 
treatment  of  Flavian  and  the  acquittal  of  Eutyches.  These 
latter  were  supported  by  Rome,  and  Leo,  excommunicated  by 
Dioscorus,  excommunicated  him  in  turn  and  demanded  a  new 
council.  However  as  long  as  Theodosius  lived  nothing  could 
be  done.  But  he  died  in  the  following  year,  and  then  the  way 
was  opened  for  a  settlement. 

B  —  THE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON 

Theodosius  was  succeeded  by  his  sister  Pulcheria,  who  had 
been  associated  with  him  in  the  rule  of  the  Empire  as  Augusta 
ever  since  415.  On  her  accession  to  the  throne  she  bestowed 
her  hand  on  Marcian,  a  very  able  and  universally  beloved  gen 
eral  of  the  army.  Both  were  devout  adherents  of  the  orthodox 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON  405 

party,  and  they  took  immediate  steps  to  settle  the  dispute  by 
convoking  a  council.  In  this  they  forestalled  Leo  who  had 
meanwhile  changed  his  mind,  but  as  the  summons  had  already 
been  sent  out  before  he  knew  of  it,  he  gave  his  consent. 
Ephesus  was  the  place  chosen  for  the  meeting;  however  this 
proved  too  inconvenient  for  the  Emperor  who  wished  to  be 
present,  and  so  Chalcedon  was  substituted.  There,  on  Octo 
ber  8,  451,  about  600  bishops,  nearly  all  from  the  East, 
gathered  for  the  first  session.  The  Pope  had  sent  as  his 
legates  the  bishops  Paschinus  and  Lucentius,  and  the  priest 
Boniface.  Paschinus  was  designated  by  Leo  as  president  of 
the  council,  "  vice  mea  Synodo  convenit  praesidere."  3 

Besides  this,  the  Pope  made  it  clearly  understood  that  he  did 
not  want  further  discussion,  but  simply  a  declaration  of  the 
faith  along  the  lines  marked  out  in  his  letter  to  Flavian.  "  It 
is  not  lawful  to  defend/'  he  wrote,  "  what  it  is  not  lawful 
to  believe,  and  in  our  letter  to  Flavian,  of  blessed  memory, 
it  was  most  fully  and  clearly  pointed  out  what  is,  according 
to  the  authority  of  the  Gospel,  the  declaration  of  the  Prophetic 
Spirit,  and  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles,  the  pious  and  sincere 
profession  of  faith  concerning  the  mystery  of  the  incarnation 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  4  In  accordance  with  this,  there 
fore,  the  Council  must  formulate  its  decision ;  hence  the  Council 
could  only  define  what  had  already  been  defined  by  the  Pope. 

After  some  rather  violent  scenes,  occasioned  by  the  exclu 
sion  of  Dioscorus  and  his  accomplices  in  the  Robber  Synod, 
the  following  five  documents  were  read  and  universally  ap 
proved  :  The  Creed  of  Nicaea ;  the  Nicene-Constantinopolitan 
Creed,  here  for  the  first  time  ascribed  to  the  Second  General 
Council;  the  fourth  letter  of  Cyril  to  Nestorius;  Cyril's  letter 
to  John  of  Antioch,  in  anticipation  of  the  reunion ;  and  Leo's 
Epistola  Dogmatica.  This  last  was  received  with  loud  ap 
plause,  the  whole  assembly  crying  out :  "  Peter  hath  spoken 
by  the  mouth  of  Leo." 

The  Council  was  decidedly  in  favor  of  not  drawing  up  a 
new  formula  of  faith,  but  the  Emperor  insisted  that  some 
Creed  must  be  presented  for  subscription  to  all  the  bishops, 

3Ep.  89;  cfr.  Ep.  103.  4Ep.  90. 


4o6  CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  their  orthodoxy.  Thereupon 
a  lengthy  discussion  ensued,  in  course  of  which  it  became  mani 
fest  that  many  Eastern  bishops  had  either  decidedly  Mono- 
physitic  leanings,  or  at  least  preferred  the  terminology  of  Cyril 
to  that  of  Leo.  As,  however,  the  legates  insisted  that  Leo's 
definition  must  be  embodied  in  the  proposed  formula,  or  they 
would  take  their  departure  and  arrange  for  a  council  in  the 
West,  the  following  Creed  was  drawn  up  and  subscribed  by 
335  bishops,  many  of  the  others  being  disqualified  to  vote  on 
account  of  the  part  they  had  taken  in  the  Robber  Synod. 

After  stating  that  the  bishops  present  accepted  the  Creed 
of  Nicsea  and  of  Constantinople,  and  also  the  letter  of  Cyril 
and  the  Epistola  Dogmatica  of  Leo,  the  document  proceeds : 
"  Following,  therefore,  the  holy  Fathers,  we  all  confess  and 
teach,  with  one  accord,  one  and  the  same  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  at  once  perfect  in  Godhead  and  perfect  in  manhood, 
truly  God  and  truly  man,  having  a  rational  soul  and  a  body; 
of  one  essence  with  the  Father  as  regards  His  Godhead,  and 
at  the  same  time  of  one  essence  with  us  as  regards  His  man 
hood,  on  account  of  us  and  our  salvation  begotten  in  the 
last  days  of  Mary  the  Virgin,  Mother  of  God;  one  and  the 
same  Christ,  Son,  Lord,  Only-Begotten,  proclaimed  in  two 
natures,  without  confusion,  without  change,  without  division, 
without  separation;  the  difference  of  the  natures  being  in  no 
way  destroyed  on  account  of  the  union,  but  rather  the  peculiar 
property  of  each  nature  being  preserved  and  concurring  in  one 
person  and  one  hypostasis  —  not  as  though  parted  or  divided 
into  two  persons,  but  one  and  the  same  Son  and  only-begotten 
God  the  Word,  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  even  as  the  Prophets  from 
of  old  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  taught  us  concerning  Him, 
and  the  Creed  of  the  Fathers  has  handed  down  to  us."  5 

"  In  this  definition  the  Church  at  length  pronounced  a  final 
verdict  on  both  extremes  of  Christological  opinion,  clearly 
repudiating  Apollinarian,  Nestorian,  and  Eutychian  teaching, 
and  stating  positively  in  a  few  words  the  relation  between  the 
two  natures  in  the  one  person :  the  relation  which  was  more 
fully  expressed  in  the  statements  of  Cyril  and  Leo,  to  which, 

6Mansi,  7,  116. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON  407 

by  recognition  on  this  occasion,  conciliar  authority  was 
given."  6  This  is  the  Protestant  view  of  the  final  outcome  of 
these  lengthy  discussions,  which  is  correct  in  every  way,  except 
in  one  important  particular:  it  was  not  the  Council  that  gave 
authority  to  the  decision  of  Leo,  as  the  author  states,  but  it 
was  Leo  who  gave  authority  to  the  decision  of  the  Council,  as 
is  quite  evident  from  what  has  been  said  in  the  preceding  para 
graphs.  He  simply  dictated  to  the  assembled  bishops  what 
decision  they  should  reach. 

Before  the  Council  closed,  twenty-seven  canons  were  drawn 
up,  all  of  which  are  disciplinary,  and  need  therefore  not  be 
considered  here.  To  these  a  twenty-eighth  was  added  in  the 
absence  of  the  Papal  legates,  which  gave  the  second  rank  in 
the  universal  Church  to  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
besides  placing  the  whole  of  Pontus,  Proconsular  Asia,  and 
Thrace  under  his  jurisdiction,  and  making  it  obligatory  upon 
the  metropolitans  of  these  regions  to  ask  consecration  from 
him.  When  the  legates  learned  what  had  been  done,  they  pro 
tested  vigorously,  contending  that  this  was  contrary  to  the 
ruling  of  Nicsea  and  an  encroachment  on  the  rights  of  the 
Holy  See.  Leo,  too,  when  asked  to  confirm  the  council,  re 
fused  to  ratify  this  canon.  Apparently  the  Greeks  yielded, 
and  even  omitted  the  canon  from  their  collections,  but  in  prac 
tice  they  clung  to  all  the  privileges  it  granted.  It  always  re 
mained  a  cause  of  trouble,  until,  on  the  establishment  of  the 
Latin  Empire  at  Constantinople  in  1215,  the  Fourth  Lateran 
ratified  it  in  its  fifth  canon. 

In  the  Creed  cited  above,  the  faith  of  the  Church  was  de 
fined  ;  and  "writing,  composing,  or  teaching  any  other  creed  " 
was  forbidden  under  severe  penalties ;  but  the  Eutychian  error 
was  by  no  means  suppressed.  Considerable  bodies  of  Chris 
tians  refused  to  accept  the  doctrine  of  two  natures,  at  least  in 
the  terms  used  at  Chalcedon,  although  they  were  quite  ready 
to  condemn  the  teaching  of  the  extreme  Monophysites,  who 
held  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  was  absorbed  by  the 
divine.  Accordingly  numerous  secessions  from  the  Church 
took  place,  the  seceders  asserting  one  incarnate  nature,  without 

6  *Bethune-Baker,  o.  c.  286. 


408          CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

however  explaining  how,  precisely,  the  oneness  of  nature  was 
effected  in  the  God-Man.  In  Palestine  and  Egypt  serious  riot 
ing  and  bloodshed  followed.  Large  numbers  of  monks  and 
lay  people,  led  by  such  recalcitrant  bishops  as  Timothy  yElurus 
(the  Cat),  Peter  Mongus,  and  Peter  the  Fuller,  rose  in  open 
rebellion  against  those  who  accepted  the  Council.  Peace  was 
at  last  restored,  but  only  when  wide  regions  had  been  lost  to 
the  Church. 

It  must  be  noted,  however,  that  very  many  of  those  who 
left  the  Church,  both  bishops  and  people,  were  in  reality  schis 
matics  rather  than  heretics.  They  contended,  indeed,  for  one 
incarnate  nature  in  Christ,  but  they  admitted  at  the  same  time 
that  this  incarnate  nature  was  made  up  of  two  distinct  sub 
stances,  the  divine  and  the  human,  which  remained  somehow 
distinct  even  in  the  union.  They  professed  to  follow  the 
teaching,  not  of  Eutyches,  but  of  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  from 
whom  they  took  the  expression,  "  one  incarnate  nature."  But 
while  they  thus  professed  the  orthodox  doctrine  in  antiquated 
terminology,  they  made  the  great  mistake  of  not  adopting  the 
language  of  the  Church,  when  the  new  heresy  called  for  the 
substitution  of  clearer  terms.7  Thus  it  was  their  want  of 
submission,  not  their  want  of  faith,  that  cut  them  off  from 
the  Church.  But  from  schism  to  heresy  is  but  a  short  step, 
and  in  the  course  of  years  many  of  these  orthodox  opponents 
of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  joined  the  Eutychian  party,  and 
in  consequence  did  away  with  all  objective  distinction  between 
the  two  natures  in  Christ.  Hence  the  Monophysites  of  to-day 
are  not  only  schismatics,  but  heretics  as  well;  and,  like  all 
heretics,  split  up  into  a  vast  variety  of  sects. 

By  way  of  supplement  to  the  foregoing  discussion,  some 
thing  must  here  be  said  about  St.  Cyril's  relation  to  the  Mono 
physites.  Whilst  he  was  universally  regarded  as  the  great 
champion  of  orthodoxy  against  Nestorius,  he  was  at  the  same 
time  claimed  by  many  of  the  Monophysite  leaders  as  an  author 
ity  for  their  teaching ;  and  this  claim  is  considered  as  justified 
by  a  large  number  of  modern  Protestant  writers.  Hence  it 

7  Cfr.  Tixeront,  o.  c.  99-123. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON 


409 


is  necessary  to  investigate  briefly  the  reasons  upon  which  this 
claim  is  based.8 

The  most  obvious  reason,  no  doubt,  is  the  fact  that  the 
Monophysites  formulated  their  doctrine  in  the  very  terms  used 
by  Cyril.     Their  watchword,  "  One  incarnate  nature  of  God 
the  Word,"  was  his  watchword  also;  and  the  statement  of 
Eutyches:     "I  confess  that  before  the  union  Christ  was  of 
two  natures,  but  after  the  union  I  confess  only  one  nature," 
is  likewise  found  in  his  writings  :  9  but  he  used  both  expres 
sions  in  a  perfectly  orthodox  sense,  which  his  followers  seem 
to  have  overlooked.     This  oversight  on  their  part  was,  no 
doubt,  largely  owing  to  Cyril's  peculiar  terminology.     Thus 
<£vW  and  wroorao-is,  which  the  Cappadocians  had  already  dis 
tinguished  as  nature  and  person,  were  employed  by  him  as 
identical  in  meaning,  signifying  a  concrete,  individual,  and 
independently  existing  nature,    or   simply  a  person  as   dis 
tinguished  from  nature.     He  hardly  ever  designated  the  human 
nature   of    Christ   by   <£iW   only,    but   usually   added    some 
qualification  to  show  that  the  idea  of  personality  was  excluded. 
And  hence  when  he  says  that  after  the  incarnation  Christ  is 
/wo,  <£vW,  he  does  not  mean  that  Christ  has  only  one  nature, 
but  that  He  is  only  one  person.     And  again,  when  he  says 
that  before  the  union  there  were  Mo  ^'o-ets,  and  after  the  union 
only  fj.ta  </>iW,  he  refers  not  to  natures  but  to  persons  ;  without, 
however,  intending  to  imply  that  the  human  nature  ever  had 
a  distinct  personality  of  its  own  which  was  lost  in  the  union.10 
In  this  particular  Cyril's  terminology  is  peculiar,  and  alto 
gether  different  from  that  employed  in  the  Antiochene  school 
at  the  time.     The  latter  also  identified  <£u'<ns  and  wrooraow, 
but  to  signify  nature,  in  opposition  to  TT/OOO-WTTOV  or  person. 
Hence  much  of  the  opposition  that  Cyril  experienced  on  the 
part  of  John  of  Antioch  and  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  arose  pre 
cisely  from  the  different  meaning  they  attached  to  the  terms 
that  were  used.     When  Cyril  spoke  of  j"'a  <£iW,  his  adver 
saries  understood  him  to  mean  one  nature;  and  when  they 
defended  8vo  Qvcrets  in  Christ,  Cyril  inferred  that  they  meant 


8  Ibid.  58^75.  10  Cfr.  Bardenhewer,  Patrol.  366. 

9  Epist.  40,  ad  Acac. 


4io          CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

two  persons.  It  was  only  after  much  acrimonious  contention 
and  lengthy  explanations  that  they  came  to  understand  each 
other's  theological  language;  and  that  understanding  once 
reached,  they  found  that  they  agreed  in  doctrine.  And  as 
Cyril's  terms  were  thus  misunderstood  by  his  Catholic  adver 
saries,  so  were  they  also  misunderstood  by  his  Monophysite 
followers. 

At  the  same  time,  however,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that 
the  Alexandrian  and  Antiochene  schools  approached  the 
Christological  problem  from  entirely  different  view-points. 
The  latter  always  reasoned  from  the  distinction  of  the  natures 
in  Christ  to  the  unity  of  person,  with  the  result  that  the  dis 
tinction  was  very  much  emphasized ;  whilst  the  former  started 
from  the  unity  of  person  and  derived  thence  the  distinction  of 
the  two  natures,  with  the  contrary  result  that  the  unity  received 
special  emphasis.  In  the  one  case  the  two  distinct  natures  are 
regarded  as  united,  and  therefore  Christ  is  one  person;  in  the 
other  case  the  person  is  considered  as  having  assumed  a  second 
nature,  and  therefore  Christ  has  two  natures.  Hence  the 
Antiochenes  would  say  that  Christ  is  one  person  because  of 
the  union,  while  the  Alexandrians  would  prefer  the  expression 
that  Christ  is  one  person  in  spite  of  the  union.  It  was  exactly 
the  same  doctrine,  as  considered  from  one  view-point  or  the 
other;  but  overemphasis  in  the  one  case  led  to  Nestorianism, 
and  overemphasis  in  the  other  ended  in  Monophysism.  Yet 
whilst  John  and  Theodoret  are  not  considered  as  Nestorians, 
it  would  be  unfair  to  look  upon  Cyril  as  a  Monophysite. 

Nor  did  he  fail  to  repudiate  all  such  imputations  in  the  most 
emphatic  language.  When  through  a  misunderstanding  of 
his  terms  the  confusion  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  was  laid 
to  his  charge,  he  replied  without  hesitation :  "  He  is  mighty 
foolish  who  asserts  any  such  confusion  or  mixture.  Consider 
ing  the  manner  in  which  the  incarnation  took  place,  we  see 
that  the  two  natures  are  united  in  an  indissoluble  union,  without 
confusion  and  without  transformation;  for  the  flesh  is  flesh 
and  not  the  divinity,  although  it  is  the  flesh  of  God ;  and  simi 
larly  the  Word  is  God  and  not  the  flesh,  although  through 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON  411 

the  incarnation  the  flesh  has  become  God's  very  own."  n  In 
the  same  sense  he  explains  the  terms  used  by  some  older  writ 
ers,  who  at  times  called  the  union  Kpams  or  mixture;  they 
thereby,  he  says,  only  meant  to  indicate  the  intimate  nature  of 
the  union.12  The  same  also  follows  from  his  famous  saying 
about  the  Divine  Motherhood  of  Mary :  "  A  perfect,  sufficient, 
and  irreproachable  profession  of  faith  is  found  in  the  asser 
tion  of  the  Divine  Maternity  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  " ;  because 
if  Christ  were  not  truly  God  after  the  union,  her  maternity 
would  not  be  "  divine  " ;  if  He  were  not  at  the  same  time  also 
truly  man,  it  would  not  be  a  "  maternity  "  at  all.13 

Hence  whilst  it  is  perhaps  true  that  Cyril  unconsciously 
prepared  the  way  for  Monophysism,  on  account  of  his  peculiar 
and  obscure  terminology,  he  cannot  in  justice  be  charged  with 
leanings  in  that  direction.  Others  who  later  on  expressed 
their  belief  in  almost  the  same  terms,  were  indeed  accounted 
Monophy sites ;  but  they  wrote  after  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
had  fixed  orthodox  terminology  in  this  regard,  whereas  he 
wrote  before  that  work  had  been  accomplished,  which  makes 
all  the  difference  in  the  world. 

The  same  must  be  remarked  about  the  later  contention  of 
some  Monothelites,  who  invoked  Cyril's  authority  for  asserting 
only  one  will  and  one  operation  in  Christ.  He  never  treated 
the  subject  ex  professo,  and  from  his  casual  remarks  on  the 
subject  one  may  perhaps  infer  either  the  one  or  the  other 
view,  according  to  one's  own  bias  in  the  matter;  but  certain 
it  is,  that,  whilst  he  admitted  only  one  acting  subject  in  Christ, 
or  one  subject  of  predication,  he  at  the  same  time  distinguished 
between  divine  and  human  actions  in  the  Saviour.  Aside  from 
particular  texts,  this  necessarily  follows  from  his  doctrine  that 
both  natures  are  complete  and  perfect  after  the  union,  since 
that  inevitably  implies  two  distinct  principles  of  action,  each 
endowed  with  its  own  natural  activity. 

11  Epist.  45.  13  Horn.  15  De  Incarn.  Verbi. 

12  Adv.  Nest,  i,  3. 


CHAPTER  XXVII 

SOME  NEW  DISSENSIONS:   THE  THREE  CHAPTERS:   THE 
FIFTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL  * 

When  Zeno  came  to  the  throne  in  474,  the  Monophysite 
trouble  was  at  its  height.  His  own  preferences  seem  to  have 
been  for  the  heretics,  but  circumstances  compelled  him  to  be 
conciliatory  to  Catholics.  Hence  he  conceived  the  idea  of 
bringing  together  the  different  parties  by  more  or  less  sup 
pressing  the  particular  points  of  doctrine  that  were  at  the 
root  of  the  dissension.  With  this  end  in  view,  he  issued  the 
famous  Henoticon,  or  Union  Decree,  which  extolled  the  first 
three  Councils,  referred  slurringly  to  that  of  Chalcedon,  and 
carefully  avoided  all  mention  of  nature  and  person  in  Christ. 
It  aimed  at  conciliating  all  parties,  but  pleased  none.  Yet  the 
Emperor  insisted  on  its  acceptance  by  all,  and  resolutely  de 
posed  Catholic  and  Monophysite  bishops  alike,  if  they  refused 
to  subscribe.  The  result  was  universal  dissatisfaction. 

A  —  SOME  NEW  DISSENSIONS 

In  this  desperate  state  of  things,  the  Eastern  bishops  ap 
pealed  to  Rome  for  protection  against  the  unwarranted  inter 
ference  of  the  Emperor  in  ecclesiastical  affairs.  John  Talaias, 
Catholic  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  visited  Rome  in  person  to 
obtain  help  from  the  Pope.  As  a  result,  Felix  III,  in  483,  sent 
legates  to  Constantinople,  both  to  obtain  a  legal  recognition  of 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon  and  to  assert  the  rights  of  the  de 
posed  bishops.  However  the  Emperor,  by  threats  and  bribery, 
gained  the  legates  over  to  his  side,  and  in  consequence  nothing 
was  accomplished.  When  the  Pope  was  informed  of  what 

1  Cfr.     Hefele,    History    of    the      II,  567-574 ;  Hergenroether,  op.  cit. 
Councils,  IV,  229-363 ;  Tixeront,  H.      I,  600-613. 
D.   Ill,   124-144;   Schwane,   H.   D. 

412 


SOME  NEW  DISSENSIONS  413 

had  happened,  he  convened  a  synod  at  Rome,  for  the  purpose 
of  taking  stringent  measures  against  the  disturbers  of  the 
peace.  He  excommunicated  Acacius,  Patriarch  of  Constan 
tinople,  who  was  regarded  as  the  originator  of  the  Emperor's 
foolish  scheme,  and  who  openly  fraternized  with  the  Mono- 
physites.  Acacius  retaliated  by  striking  the  Pope's  name  from 
the  diptychs,  and,  protected  by  the  Emperor,  continued  to  dis 
charge  his  patriarchal  functions  in  spite  of  the  Papal  excom 
munication. 

Thus  originated  the  first  Greek  schism,  which  lasted  for 
thirty-five  years,  or  from  484  to  519.  It  was  only  during  the 
reign  of  the  Catholic  Emperor  Justin  I,  that  the  Patriarch  John, 
the  fifth  successor  of  Acacius,  acceded  to  the  demands  of  Rome. 
He  subscribed  the  famous  formula  of  Pope  Hermisdas,  in 
which  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  and  all  the  letters  of  Pope 
Leo  on  matters  of  faith  are  received  without  reserve.  It  con 
cludes  as  follows : 

"  And  thus  I  hope  that  I  may  deserve  to  be  with  thee  in  the 
one  communion  of  faith  preached  by  the  Apostolic  See,  in 
which  is  found  the  entire  and  the  truthful  and  the  perfect  firm 
ness  of  the  Christian  religion:  promising  that  for  the  future 
the  names  of  those  who  are  separated  from  the  communion 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  that  is,  those  not  agreeing  with  the 
Apostolic  See,  are  not  to  be  recited  in  the  Sacred  Mysteries. 
But  if  in  anything  I  should  deviate  from  this  my  pledge,  I 
confess  to  be  by  my  own  judgment  an  accomplice  of  those 
whom  I  have  condemned.  And  this  my  pledge  I  have  sub 
scribed  with  my  own  hand,  and  directed  to  thee,  Hormisdas, 
the  holy  and  venerable  Pope  in  the  city  of  Rome."  2 

This  formula  was  subscribed  by  nearly  all  the  Eastern 
bishops,  and  thus  the  schism  was  healed;  but  the  seeds  of  it 
remained,  to  spring  up  at  a  more  opportune  time.  Yet  it  must 
not  be  overlooked  how  clear  a  testimony  the  subscription  of 
this  formula  bears  to  the  Primacy  of  Rome  as  acknowledged 
by  the  Eastern  Church  on  that  occasion. 

During  the  time  of  the  Acacian  schism  another  dispute  arose 
out  of  the  expression,  "  Unus  ex  Trinitate  crucifixus  est,"  one 

2  P.  L.  68,  460. 


4i4          CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

of  the  Trinity  was  crucified.  It  was  Peter  Fuller,  the  Mono- 
physite  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  who  introduced  the  phrase  into 
the  Trisagion,  "  Deus  sanctus,  Deus  fortis,  Deus  immortalis," 
by  adding  to  it,  "  qui  crucifixus  es  pro  nobis."  Thereby  he 
intended  to  imply  that  the  divinity  had  in  some  way  absorbed 
the  human  nature  in  Christ,  and  that  consequently  the  suffer 
ings  of  the  cross  had  directly  affected  the  divine  nature.  This 
was  obviously  heretical;  yet  in  itself  the  expression  admitted 
of  a  perfectly  orthodox  sense,  in  as  much  as  the  divine  person 
could  be  said  to  have-  suffered  in  His  human  nature.  Hence 
many  Catholics  felt  no  scruple  in  reciting  the  Trisagion  in 
the  amended  form,  whilst  others  regarded  it  as  a  profession 
of  the  Monophysite  error,  and  so  it  became  an  apple  of  discord 
among  Eastern  Catholics. 

The  matter  was  brought  to  the  notice  of  ecclesiastical  au 
thority  by  some  Scythian  monks  at  Constantinople,  who  were 
of  opinion  that  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  had  done  scant  justice 
to  the  teaching  of  Cyril  in  regard  to  the  communicatio  idioma- 
tum.  With  this  in  mind,  they  demanded  that  the  formula, 
"  Unus  ex  Trinitate  passus  est,"  as  they  worded  it,  should  be 
solemnly  approved.  But  neither  the  Patriarch  John  nor  the 
Papal  legates  would  agree  to  this,  although  they  did  not  reject 
the  formula  itself.  Then  appeal  was  made  to  Pope  Hormis- 
das,  but  he  also  refused;  because  on  account  of  the  interpre 
tation  put  upon  it  by  the  Monophysites  it  appeared  dangerous 
to  use  the  expression,  and  besides  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
stood  in  no  need  of  correction.  Meanwhile  the  friends  of 
John  Maxentius,  who  was  the  leader  of  the  monks,  approached 
a  number  of  theologians,  among  them  Fulgentius  of  Ruspe, 
and  Dionysius  Exiguus,  to  obtain  their  opinion  on  the  ortho 
doxy  of  the  formula.  As  they  received  a  favorable  answer 
they  became  the  more  insistent,  but  all  their  efforts  were  un 
availing;  if  they  wished  to  use  the  expression  they  might  do 
so,  but  the  Pope  had  no  mind  to  make  its  use  obligatory. 

Whilst  this  was  going  on,  another  party  of  monks,  the 
Acemeti,  or  the  Sleepless  Ones,  attacked  the  formula  as 
heretical  and  fell  back  into  Nestorianism.  Thereupon  the 
dogmatizing  Emperor  Justinian  endeavored  to  obtain  an  of- 


THE  THREE  CHAPTERS  415 

ficial  approval  of  it  from  Rome,  but  John  II,  who  was  then 
Pope,  and  after  him  Agapetus  I,  did  not  fall  in  with  his  views. 
However  Justinian  was  not  the  man  to  be  disconcerted  by  the 
opposition  of  Popes,  and  so  he  presented  his  request  to  the 
Fifth  General  Council,  in  553,  and  succeeded  in  having  the 
formula  approved.  In  all  this  there  was  obviously  no  differ 
ence  of  doctrine  between  Pope  and  Pope,  or  between  Pope  and 
Council,  but  only  a  question  of  expedience  as  suggested  by  the 
circumstances  of  the  times. 

It  was  also  at  the  instance  of  Justinian  that  certain  propo 
sitions  taken  from  the  works  of  Origen  were  condemned, 
almost  three  hundred  years  after  the  author's  death.  The 
Emperor's  attention  had  been  called  to  them,  it  seems,  by  the 
Roman  deacon  Pelagius,  who  a  few  years  later  became  Pope, 
and  also  by  some  Palestinian  monks.  He  forthwith  composed 
a  long  document  containing  twenty  extracts  from  the  Peri 
Archon,  which  bore  on  the  preexistence  of  souls,  the  apoka- 
tastasis,  etc.  These  he  essayed  to  refute,  and  then  ended  up 
with  ten  anathemas  against  the  Alexandrian  doctor.  At  the 
same  time  he  directed  the  Patriarch  Mennas  to  call  a  synod 
and  settle  this  matter  ecclesiastically. 

The  synod  met  in  543,  and  after  much  discussion  fifteen 
propositions  were  drawn  up  from  the  extracts  submitted  and 
condemned  as  contrary  to  the  faith.  These  the  Emperor  sent 
around  to  the  various  churches,  and  it  appears  that  Pope 
Vigilius,  all  the  patriarchs,  and  most  of  the  bishops  subscribed 
the  condemnation.  For  a  long  time  the  propositions  in  ques 
tion  were  considered  to  have  been  drawn  up  and  condemned 
by  the  Fifth  General  Council,  but  it  is  now  satisfactorily  estab 
lished  that  they  originated  as  here  indicated,  and  that  the 
Council  included  Origen  only  in  a  general  condemnation  of 
heretics.3 

B  —  THE  THREE  CHAPTERS 

As  early  as  531,  the  Emperor  had  gathered  a  Synod  of 
Orthodox  and  Monophysite  bishops  for  the  purpose  of  effect- 

3  Mansi,  9,  201,  533. 


4i6          CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

ing  a  union.  At  this  Synod  the  writings  of  the  Pseudo- 
Areopagite  were  cited,  only  to  be  immediately  rejected  as 
spurious.  The  Emperor's  efforts  towards  bringing  about  a 
union  came  to  nothing,  but  he  kept  the  project  in  mind  for 
future  opportunities. 

Hence  when  the  Origenist  bishop  of  Csesarea,  Theodore 
Askidas,  in  his  anxiety  to  divert  the  Emperor's  attention  from 
Origen,  suggested  that  the  union  with  the  Monophysites  would 
be  much  facilitated  if  the  writings  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia, 
Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  and  Ibas  of  Edessa  were  to  be  condemned, 
the  imperial  dogmatizer  eagerly  took  up  the  suggestion.  In 
543  he  published  a  letter  on  the  matter,  which  ended  up  with 
a  condemnation  of  Theodore,  some  of  the  writings  of 
Theodoret,  and  the  letter  of  Ibas  to  Maris.  The  writings  of 
these  three  men  thus  condemned,  together  with  the  authors, 
are  known  in  history  as  the  Three  Chapters.  The  matter  had 
already  been  brought  up  at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  but  the 
assembled  bishops  abstained  from  issuing  a  formal  condemna 
tion,  and  even  reinstated  Theodoret  and  Ibas  in  their  sees, 
after  they  had  subscribed  a  formula  of  faith  which  anathe 
matized  Nestorius.  For  this  reason  the  Emperor  inserted  in 
his  condemnation  of  the  Three  Chapters  the  following  clause : 
"  If  any  one  say  that  we  took  this  course  for  the  purpose  of 
suppressing  or  setting  aside  the  holy  Fathers  who  were 
gathered  in  Council  at  Chalcedon,  let  him  be  anathema." 
Hence  the  decisions  of  the  Council  were  to  remain  in  force, 
nor  was  anything  to  be  attempted  contrary  to  the  minds  of 
those  holy  Fathers. 

Thus  safeguarded,  the  letter  was  sent  around  for  subscrip 
tion,  and  nearly  all  the  Eastern  bishops  complied  with  the 
Emperor's  wishes,  though  it  may  well  be  presumed  that  many 
did  so  against  their  better  judgment.  The  Western  bishops, 
however,  and  also  Pope  Vigilius,  declared  themselves  against 
the  condemnation.  The  Pope  had  been  urged  to  take  this 
stand  by  the  deacon  Ferrandus  of  Carthage,  whose  advice  he 
had  asked  in  the  matter.  To  break  down  this  opposition, 
Justinian  had  the  Pope  conveyed  to  Constantinople,  where  he 
at  first  treated  him  with  all  the  consideration  due  to  the  Father 


THE  FIFTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL  417 

of  Christendom.  The  Pope  attributed  this  friendly  attitude 
of  the  Emperor  to  a  change  of  views  in  regard  to  the  Three 
Chapters,  and  proceeded  to  excommunicate  Mennas  and  the 
other  bishops  who  had  subscribed  the  condemnation.  But 
little  by  little  Justinian  made  him  understand  that  the  con 
demnation  must  remain  in  force,  with  the  result  that  Vigilius 
was  prevailed  upon  to  issue  his  Judicatum,  wherein  he  com 
pletely  reversed  his  former  judgment.  In  this  document  he 
condemns  the  person  and  writings  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia, 
the  letter  of  Ibas  and  all  those  who  approved  it,  and  such 
writings  of  Theodoret  as  were  against  the  true  faith  and  the 
anathematisms  of  Cyril,  "  salva  tamen  Concilli  Chalcedonensis 
auctoritate." 4  Thus  the  Emperor  triumphed,  but  the  West 
turned  against  the  Pope,  and  the  African  Church  even  excom 
municated  him  until  he  had  done  penance. 

Apparently  neither  the  Pope  nor  the  Emperor  had  antici 
pated  this  strong  opposition  from  the  West;  for  on  realizing 
it  they  quietly  withdrew  the  Judicatum  and  came  to  an  under 
standing  that  the  whole  matter  should  be  settled  in  a  general 
council.  After  a  little  while,  however,  Justinian  changed  his 
mind,  and  in  551  once  more  condemned  the  Three  Chapters. 
When  Vigilius  heard  of  this  he  fled  to  Chalcedon,  where  he 
took  sanctuary  in  the  Church  of  Saint  Euphemia.  Thus  safe 
from  the  Emperor,  he  published  a  sentence  of  deposition 
against  Theodore  Askidas,  the  Emperor's  adviser,  and  a 
sentence  of  suspension  against  the  Patriarch  Mennas.  The 
latter  died  shortly  after  this,  and  his  successor  Eutychius 
effected  a  reconciliation  with  the  Pope,  who  had  meanwhile 
returned  to  Constantinople.  In  this  condition  matters  re 
mained  until  the  opening  of  the  council. 

C  —  THE  FIFTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL 

After  publishing  the  Professio  Fldei,  in  which  he  once  again 
condemned  the  Three  Chapters,  the  Emperor  summoned  the 
bishops  to  meet  in  council  at  Constantinople,  as  had  been 
agreed  upon  between  him  and  the  Pope.  In  May,  553,  about 

4Mansi,  9,  181,  104;  P.  L.  69,  in. 


4i8  CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

1 60  bishops  had  arrived,  who  were  nearly  all  from  the  East. 
When  Vigilius  was  informed  of  this,  he  changed  his  mind 
about  the  council,  being  unwilling  to  submit  his  dispute  with 
the  Emperor  to  a  gathering  of  almost  exclusively  Eastern 
bishops.  He  suggested  Italy  or  Sicily  as  the  proper  place  for 
the  meeting,  and  stipulated  an  equal  representation  from  the 
East  and  the  West.  This  was  precisely  what  Justinian  tried 
to  avoid,  and  so  he  would  not  listen  to  the  suggestion.  As 
both  parties  refused  to  yield,  the  Council  opened  without  the 
Pope,  Eutychius  acting  as  president.5 

Whilst  the  Council  was  thus  holding  its  sessions  without 
proper  sanction,  Vigilius  wrote  another  document,  called  the 
C onstitutum ,  in  which  he  considerably  modified  his  judgment 
on  the  Three  Chapters  as  contained  in  his  earlier  Judicatum. 
After  summing  up  what  had  been  done  thus  far,  and  subject 
ing  the  points  under  discussion  to  a  thorough  examination, 
he  condemned  the  writings  of  Theodore,  but  not  his  person, 
deeming  it  unbecoming  to  anathematize  the  dead ;  then,  as  the 
writings  of  Theodoret  had  not  been  condemned  at  Chalcedon, 
although  they  had  been  discussed  there,  he  would  not  condemn 
them  either;  lastly,  he  took  the  same  position  with  regard  to 
the  letter  of  Ibas,  being  satisfied  with  anathematizing  in  a 
general  way  all  writings  against  the  true  faith,  whoever  might 
be  the  author.  He  concluded  by  prohibiting  all  clerics  either 
to  add  to,  or  to  take  from,  or  to  change  in  any  way,  the  de 
cisions  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon;  also  forbidding  all  per 
sons,  of  whatever  ecclesiastical  degree  or  dignity,  to  write, 
publish,  compose,  or  teach  anything  contrary  to  the  present 
Constitutum,  or  to  agitate  anew,  after  this  definition,  the  ques 
tion  of  the  Three  Chapters.6 

This  determined  stand  taken  by  Vigilius  greatly  offended 
the  Emperor,  and  he  ordered  the  Council  to  break  off  com 
munion  with  the  Pope,  contending  that  he  had  made  himself  a 
particeps  in  the  heresy  of  Nestorius.  The  Council  obeyed,  but. 
at  the  Emperor's  suggestion,  explicitly  professed  to  continue 
in  communion  with  the  Apostolic  See :  "  Servemus  itaque 

6Mansi,  9.  6  Mansi,  g,  61-106;  P.  L.  69,  114. 


THE  FIFTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL  419 

unitatem  ad  Apostolicam  sacrosanctae  Ecclesiae  sedem  anti- 
quioris  Romae."  7  This  is  the  first  instance  of  the  notorious 
distinction  "  inter  sedem  et  sedentem,"  which  in  later  centuries 
was  to  play  so  important  a  part  in  the  pretensions  of  the  Gal- 
lican  Church.  By  the  step  thus  taken,  however,  the  council 
from  being  merely  insubordinate  became  ipso  facto  schisma- 
tical.  It  held  only  one  more  session,  during  which  a  document 
was  composed  that  reviewed  the  whole  question  of  the  Three 
Chapters  and  launched  fourteen  anathemas  already  contained 
in  the  Emperor's  Professio  Fidel.  It  ended  with  a  sentence 
of  deposition  against  all  bishops  and  clerics,  and  a  sentence  of 
excommunication  against  all  monks  and  laics,  who  dared 
spread,  teach,  or  write  anything  contrary  to  the  dispositions 
thus  made. 

As  soon  as  the  Council  had  been  dissolved,  the  Emperor 
took  measures  to  secure  the  subscription  of  all  the  bishops  who 
had  failed  to  attend  the  meeting.  He  was  quite  successful  in 
the  East,  but  in  the  West  he  encountered  a  determined  re 
sistance,  although  he  did  not  shrink  from  using  violence  in 
enforcing  his  will.  Vigilius  himself  seems  to  have  been  ban 
ished  for  a  while,  but  he  ended  by  yielding  to  the  Emperor's 
wishes.  In  a  letter  to  Eutychius  he  condemned  the  Three 
Chapters  in  the  sense  of  the  Council,  and  annulled  whatever 
he  and  others  had  done  to  uphold  them.8  He  expressed  him 
self  similarly  in  a  new  Constitutum,  probably  addressed  to  the 
Latin  bishops.9  Then,  after  an  absence  of  seven  years,  he 
was  allowed  to  return  to  Rome,  but  he  died  before  he  reached 
his  destination.  His  successor  Pelagius,  although  at  first 
opposed  to  the  council,  in  his  turn  ended  by  accepting  it.10 
This  gave  rise  to  numerous  local  schisms  in  the  West.  Many 
bishops  in  Illyria,  Dalmatia,  Istria,  Venetia,  Liguria,  Tuscany, 
and  North  Africa,  broke  off  communion  with  Pelagius.  It 
was  only  under  his  successors,  especially  Gregory  the  Great 
and  Sergius  I,  that  these  schisms  were  healed.  Gaul  and 
Spain  also  assumed  a  hostile  attitude,  but  in  these  countries 
it  never  came  to  a  formal  schism. 

7  Mansi,  9,  367.  9  Ibid.  9,  457-488. 

8  Ibid.  9,  414  sqq.  "Epist.  Pelag.  3,  5,  9;  P.  L.  69. 


420          CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

Dogmatically  these  controversies  are  of  interest  only  in  so 
far  as  they  have  a  bearing  on  the  infallibility  of  General 
Councils  and  the  Pope.  And  even  in  this  respect  they  offer 
nothing  that  is  of  real  importance.  For  it  must  be  borne  in 
mind  that  the  writings  of  Theodore,  Theodoret,  and  Ibas,  or 
the  so-called  Three  Chapters,  might  at  the  time  of  the  con 
troversy  either  be  allowed  to  go  uncensured  or  be  condemned 
as  heretical,  without  injury  being  done  to  the  faith  in  either 
case.  If  due  allowance  was  made  for  the  time  in  which  they 
originated,  for  the  rather  indefinite  terminology  which  was 
then  and  there  in  vogue,  and  for  the  subjective  good  faith  of 
the  authors  which  was  at  least  probable,  there  was  no  call 
for  condemnation ;  and  this  was  apparently  the  position  taken 
by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  all 
these  considerations  were  set  aside,  and  the  writings  in  ques 
tion  were  judged  exclusively  on  their  own  merit  as  they  ap 
peared  in  the  light  of  a  clearer  and  more  definite  terminology 
of  later  times,  they  could  not  well  be  passed  by  without  severe 
censure;  and  this  seems  to  have  been  the  view  taken  of  them 
by  the  Fifth  General  Council.  Hence  as  far  as  these  two 
Councils  come  in  question,  the  matter  of  infallibility  presents 
no  difficulty;  especially  as  Chalcedon  did  certainly  not  give  a 
conciliar  approval.  And  the  same  reasoning  applies  also  to 
the  action  of  Pelagius  in  accepting  the  condemnation  of  the 
Three  Chapters  by  the  Council  of  Constantinople. 

The  case  of  Vigilius  offers  greater  difficulty.  His  Judi- 
catum  and  his  confirmation  of  the  Council,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  his  Consiituium,  on  the  other,  seem  certainly  to  give  con 
tradictory  decisions,  and  yet  they  were  meant  to  be  binding 
on  the  whole  Church.  Of  course,  the  case  of  Theodore  may 
be  eliminated,  as  his  writings  were  consistently  condemned  all 
through  and  as  the  judgment  regarding  his  person  does  not 
touch  the  faith.  The  difficulty,  then,  turns  about  the  writings 
of  Theodoret  and  Ibas.  The  Judicatum  condemns  them  with 
out  discrimination,  whilst  the  Constitiitum  cancels  the  sentence 
and  anathematizes  in  a  general  way  all  writings  against  the 
true  faith.  But  here  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  in  his 
Constitutum  Vigilius  makes  allowance  for  all  the  attenuating 


THE  FIFTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL  421 

circumstances  enumerated  above,  taking  the  same  position  as 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  without  passing  any  judgment  on 
the  objective  merits  or  demerits  of  the  writings  in  question. 
This  alone  would  appear  to  remove  all  contradiction  between 
the  two  documents  in  so  far  as  they  touch  the  question  of  Papal 
infallibility.  And  furthermore,  it  may  reasonably  be  supposed 
that  the  Constitntum  was  not  intended  to  give  a  definitive  de 
cision,  but  only  to  pass  a  disciplinary  measure  whereby  respect 
for  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  would  be  safeguarded.  Thus 
whilst  it  is  only  too  evident  that  Vigilius  played  an  inglorious 
part  throughout  the  whole  proceeding,  there  is  no  evidence 
whatever  that  Papal  infallibility  was  in  any  way  compromised 
by  his  apparently  contradictory  decisions. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII 

THE  MONOTHELITE  CONTROVERSY:    THE  SIXTH  GENERAL 

COUNCIL  i 

The  Council  of  Chalcedon  defined  the  duality  of  natures  in 
Christ,  and  reaffirmed  the  unity  of  person,  declaring  that  both 
natures,  the  human  and  the  divine,  are  "  united  in  the  one 
person  of  the  Logos,  without  confusion  and  without  change, 
without  severance  and  without  separation."  This,  if  rightly 
understood,  necessarily  implies  one  subject  of  predication  and 
a  twofold  principle  of  action  —  one  Christ  to  whom,  by  reason 
of  the  hypostatic  union,  both  human  and  divine  actions  are 
attributed,  and  two  natures  from  each  of  which  its  own  proper 
activity  proceeds  without  interference  from  the  other.  Yet 
this  latter  doctrine,  regarding  the  two  distinct  operations,  was 
not  explicitly  and  directly  defined,  and  so  there  were  not  want 
ing  those  among  orthodox  Christians  who  favored  one 
theandric  or  divinely  human  activity  in  Christ.  There  was 
no  direct  question  of  the  acting  principles  themselves,  but  of 
their  activity  as  proceeding  from  them  and  posited  in  its 
term.  Logically,  indeed,  this  confusion  of  activities  should 
have  led  to  a  like  confusion  of  principles,  and  so  the  Mono- 
physites  generally  understood  it;  but  orthodox  writers,  who 
favored  one  activity  or  operation  in  Christ,  do  not  appear  to 
have  drawn  this  inference.  Others,  however,  clearly  per 
ceived  the  implication,  and  resolutely  defended  two  distinct 
operations  as  they  were  bound  to  defend  two  distinct  natures. 
The  result  was  a  protracted  controversy,  which  on  the  one 
side  led  to  the  definition  of  two  wills  and  two  operations  by 
the  Sixth  General  Council,  and  on  the  other  to  the  Monothelite 
heresy. 

iCfr.  Hefele,  History  of  the  Councils,  V,  137-206;  Tixeront,  H.  D.  Ill, 
IS3-I79- 

422 


THE  MONOTHELITE  HERESY  423 

A  —  THE  MONOTHELITE  CONTROVERSY 

The  immediate  occasion  of  the  controversy  was  furnished 
by  the  Emperor  Heraclius,  who  was  anxious  to  conciliate  the 
Monophysites  of  Syria  and  Egypt  in  his  war  against  the 
Persians  and  Arabians.  To  gain  over  these  heretics,  he  ad 
vanced  the  theory  of  one  will  in  Christ  as  explained  above, 
which  was  obviously  a  concession  to  their  belief  in  the  one 
nature.  He  was  encouraged  in  this  by  Sergius,  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  who  had  been  quietly  advocating  this  view  for 
some  time  past.  The  Emperor's  first  important  convert  was 
Cyrus  of  Phasis  in  Armenia,  whom  he  transferred  to  the 
vacant  patriarchate  of  Alexandria,  with  the  understanding 
that  he  should  gain  over  the  Monophysites.  The  new  patri 
arch  was  faithful  to  his  commission  and  in  a  short  time  per 
suaded  large  bodies  of  the  heretics  to  rejoin  the  Church.  This 
reconciliation  was  effected  on  the  basis  of  nine  anathematisms, 
which  emphasized  that  the  union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ 
was  physical,  that  it  resulted  in  one  incarnate  nature  of  the 
Logos,  and  that  all  those  are  anathema  "  who  deny  that  there 
is  one  Christ  and  one  Son,  producing  all  His  actions,  divine 
and  human,  by  one  sole  theandric  operation,  as  is  taught  by 
St.  Dionysius  (the  Pseudo-Areopagite),  the  elements  of  the 
union  being  so  related  that  there  is  between  them  only  a  mental 
and  not  a  real  distinction."  2  All  this  is  genuine  Monophysism 
in  phrase  and  expression,  if  not  in  thought  and  purpose. 

The  work  of  Cyrus  was  highly  appreciated  by  the  Emperor 
and  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  and  by  their  assistance 
the  reconciliation  of  heretics  proceeded  apace.  But  in  633, 
two  Palestinian  monks,  Maximus  and  Sophronius,  who  were 
tarrying  for  a  while  in  Alexandria,  examined  the  Union 
Formula  and  immediately  raised  their  voices  in  protest.  This 
did  not  have  much  effect,  but  as  Sophronius  was  the  following 
year  consecrated  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  his  opposition  be 
came  formidable.  He  wrote  a  long  synodal  letter,  in  which, 
after  setting  forth  the  orthodox  Trinitarian  and  Christological 
doctrines  as  taught  by  the  Church,  he  enlarges  on  the  question 

2Mansi,  2,  564-568. 


424          CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

of  one  will  and  operation  in  Christ.  There  is,  he  says,  only  one 
agent  in  the  God-Man,  one  person,  one  subject  of  predication; 
but  as  there  are  two  natures,  and  each  nature  preserves  in  the 
union  its  own  perfections  and  properties,  it  follows  necessarily 
that  Christ  has  two  wills,  and  where  there  are  two  wills  there 
must  be  two  operations  ontologically  distinct,  although  one 
nature  does  not  act  altogether  independently  of  the  other. 
Where  there  is  only  one  operation,  there  can  be  only  one 
nature ;  as  it  is  from  the  distinction  of  operations  that  we  infer, 
as  philosophers  have  it,  the  distinction  of  natures.3 

This  protest  made  Sergius  realize  that  his  position  would 
be  untenable  unless  he  could  gain  Rome  over  to  his  side. 
With  this  end  in  view,  he  sent  a  letter  to  Pope  Honorius,  giv 
ing  an  account  of  what  was  going  on,  and  adding  that  since 
his  conference  with  Sophronius  he  thought  it  better  to  observe 
a  discreet  silence  on  this  matter,  to  which  effect  he  had  also 
written  to  Cyrus  of  Alexandria.  It  might  easily  happen,  he 
thought,  that  people  would  be  scandalized  at  the  expression 
of  one  operation  in  Christ,  although  that  was  obviously  the 
right  doctrine,  since  two  operations  must  lead  to  the  assertion 
of  two  contrary  wills,  which  would  be  against  the  teaching  of 
the  Fathers. 

The  suggestion  of  Sergius  to  observe  a  discreet  silence  was 
quite  acceptable  to  Honorius,  and  he  signified  his  acquiescence 
in  two  letters,  one  of  which  was  written  before  he  had  received 
the  synodal  letter  of  Sophronius,  and  the  other  when  he  had 
examined  that  document.  In  the  first  letter  the  following 
points  are  deserving  of  notice,  as  they  throw  considerable  light 
on  the  charges  later  on  preferred  against  the  author : 

i°.  One  must  avoid  speaking  about  two  operations  in 
Christ ;  it  is  a  mere  question  of  words,  which  is  apt  to  scanda 
lize  the  simple.  If  we  speak  of  two  operations  we  are  taken 
for  Nestorians,  if  of  one  only  we  are  believed  to  be  Eutychians. 
Neither  the  Evangelists  nor  the  Apostles  nor  the  Councils  say 
anything  about  one  or  two  operations,  but  they  tell  us  that 
there  is  one  Jesus  Christ  who  in  His  divinity  and  in  His 

3  Mansi,  II,  461-509;  P.  G.  87;  Hefele,  o.  c.  43  sqq. 


THE  MONOTHELITE  HERESY  425 

humanity  acted  in  a  multitude  of  different  ways.  Hence  to 
decide  whether  it  is  proper  to  speak  of  one  or  two  operations 
is  not  our  business;  that  belongs  to  grammarians  and  philoso 
phers  to  determine.  Let  us,  therefore,  keep  quiet  about  it; 
or  if  anyone  wishes  to  occupy  himself  with  the  question,  let 
him  beware  of  making  his  opinion  a  dogma  of  the  faith. 

2°.  We  must  hold  to  this:  Jesus  Christ  being  one  person, 
in  a  unique  sense,  has  performed  at  diverse  times  divine  works 
and  human  works,  with  the  concurrence  of  both  natures:  the 
same  Jesus  acted  in  His  two  natures  divinely  and  humanly. 

3°.  As  regards  the  unity  of  will,  it  is  obvious  that  one 
ought  to  acknowledge  it;  for  although  the  Word  took  our 
nature,  yet  He  did  not  take  our  vitiated  nature:  He  took  our 
flesh  without  the  law  of  the  flesh,  which  fights  against  the 
law  of  the  spirit.  Hence  there  was  not  in  Christ  a  will  of 
different  tendencies,  nor  contrary  to  the  law  of  the  spirit ;  and 
if  He  said,  "  I  am  not  come  to  do  my  will,  but  the  will  of  the 
Father  who  sent  me,"  or  again,  "  not  as  I  will  but  as  thou 
wilt,  my  Father,"  that  does  not  indicate  a  different  will  (from 
that  of  the  Father),  but  only  the  economy  of  human  nature 
which  was  assumed.  These  words  were  spoken  for  our  in 
struction,  so  that  we  may  imitate  the  example  of  the  Master, 
each  one  of  us  preferring  to  his  own  will  the  will  of  God.4 

In  the  second  letter,  of  which  only  two  fragments  remain, 
Honorius  quotes  the  famous  passage  in  the  Epistola  Dogma- 
tica  of  Leo,  which  clearly  defines  the  two  natures  and  their 
respective  operations,  but  he  insists  that  all  such  discussions 
should  be  avoided.  Instead  of  one  operation,  as  some  contend, 
let  us  confess  one  Christ  who  acts  in  both  natures ;  and  instead 
of  two  operations,  as  others  will  have  it,  let  us  acknowledge 
two  natures  indivisibly  and  without  confusion  united  in  the 
Only-Begotten  of  the  Father.5 

But  although  Sergius  had  suggested  that  all  parties  should 
observe  a  discreet  silence,  he  had  no  intention  of  doing  so 
himself.  In  order  to  counteract  the  effect  produced  by  the 
synodal  letter  of  Sophronius,  he  composed  a  document  known 

4  P.  L.  40,  470-474-  5  Ibid-  474,  475- 


426  CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

as  the  Ecthesis,  or  Profession  of  Faith,  which  the  Emperor 
signed  and  then  sent  around  for  subscription.  Concerning 
the  question  under  discussion  he  says :  "  Following  in  all 
things,  and  in  this  more  particularly,  the  teaching  of  the  holy 
Fathers,  we  confess  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  true 
God  and  true  man,  one  only  will ;  for  at  no  time  did  His  human 
nature,  separately  and  of  its  own  initiative,  and  against  the 
assent  of  the  Divine  Word,  with  which  it  was  hypostatically 
united,  exercise  its  natural  activity,  but  only  when,  in  what 
manner,  and  to  what  extent,  the  Divine  Word  willed."  6  As 
Sophronius  had  meanwhile  died,  it  was  an  easy  matter  to  in 
duce  the  Eastern  bishops  to  subscribe  the  Ecthesis,  especially 
as  two  successive  synods  held  at  Constantinople,  the  one  under 
Sergius  in  638,  and  the  other  under  his  successor  Pyrrhus  in 
639,  approved  its  doctrine. 

Thus  the  East  readily  yielded  to  the  wishes  of  the  Emperor, 
but  the  West  offered  strong  opposition.  Honorius  died  in 
638,  and  his  successor  Severinus  survived  the  election  only  a 
few  months.  He  was  succeeded  by  John  IV,  who  summoned 
a  council  to  meet  at  Rome,  for  the  purpose  of  taking  decisive 
steps  against  the  false  teaching  that  was  spreading  in  the  East. 
The  assembled  bishops  condemned  the  doctrine  of  one  will  as 
heretical,  and  notice  of  this  was  immediately  sent  to  Con 
stantinople.  But  meanwhile  Heraclius  had  also  died,  leaving 
the  government  in  the  hands  of  his  two  sons,  Heraclius  and 
Heracleon.  As  soon  as  this  became  known  at  Rome,  the  Pope 
sent  a  letter  to  the  new  rulers,  explaining  the  true  doctrine  and 
demanding  the  immediate  suppression  of  the  Ecthesis.  In  the 
same  letter  he  also  shows  that  Honorius  did  not  deny  two 
wills  or  two  operations  in  Christ,  but  only  two  contrary  wills 
and  tendencies,  in  as  much  as  the  Word  did  not  assume  the 
law  of  the  flesh  which  is  radicated  in  our  vitiated  nature.7 

This  might  have  brought  the  dispute  to  a  close,  but  before 
any  results  of  the  Pope's  determined  action  could  be  looked 
for,  Heraclius  was  assassinated  and  a  little  later  his  brother 
was  first  mutilated  and  then  sent  into  exile.  By  this  over- 

6  Mansi,  10,  992,  979.  7  Mansi,  10,  682-686 ;  P.  L.  80,  602-607. 


THE  MONOTHELITE  HERESY  427 

throw  of  the  government  Constans  II  secured  the  throne,  and 
he  resented  all  interference  from  the  West.  A  few  years  later 
he  issued  a  Typus,  or  Statement,  which  enjoined  strict  silence 
on  all  parties  concerning  the  matter  under  discussion. 
Pyrrhus,  who  seems  to  have  been  implicated  in  the  political 
upheaval  just  referred  to,  fled  to  Africa  and  was  succeeded  by 
Paul  as  Patriarch  of  Constantinople. 

Matters  had,  however,  gone  too  far  to  be  adjusted  without 
a  final  decision  on  the  part  of  the  Church.  Hence  synods 
were  held  in  many  different  places,  all  condemning  the  teach 
ing  of  Sergius  as  an  heretical  innovation.  Practically  the 
whole  West  followed  the  lead  of  the  Pope,  whilst  in  Africa 
a  famous  discussion  took  place  between  the  fugitive  Pyrrhus 
and  Abbot  Maximus,  wherein  the  latter  proved  the  existence 
of  two  operations  in  Christ  so  conclusively  that  Pyrrhus  owned 
himself  vanquished  and  professed  the  true  doctrine.  This 
conference  was  followed  by  several  synods  which  secured 
Africa  for  the  orthodox  view.  When  John  IV  died,  his 
successor  Theodore  pursued  the  same  policy.  Paul  of  Con 
stantinople  having  applied  to  him  for  confirmation  of  his  elec 
tion  to  the  Patriarchal  see,  he  demanded  of  him  a  clear  profes 
sion  of  the  orthodox  faith  in  reference  to  the  two  operations, 
and  when  Paul  in  his  answer  advanced  the  views  contained  in 
the  Ecthesis,  the  Pope  promptly  deposed  him. 

It  was  in  this  condition  of  things  that  Martin  I  ascended 
the  Papal  throne  in  649.  He  had  been  legate  at  Constanti 
nople  and  was  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  cunning  ways  of 
the  Greeks.  Encouraged  by  Abbot  Maximus,  he  made  it  his 
first  care  to  convoke  a  synod,  for  the  purpose  of  discussing 
ways  and  means  of  putting  an  end  to  the  scandal  of  a  divided 
episcopacy.  Some  150  bishops  were  present,  and  during  a 
whole  month  they  subjected  Monothelism  to  a  thorough  in 
vestigation.  The  result  was  a  very  decided  condemnation  of 
the  doctrine  of  one  will  and  one  operation  in  Christ.  A  con- 
ciliar  document  was  drawn  up  which  contains  the  profession 
of  faith  as  formulated  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  twenty 
anathematisms  setting  forth  the  true  doctrine  concerning  the 
controverted  points.  As  Christ  had  two  natures,  so  had  He 


428  CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

also  two  natural  wills,  and  two  natural  operations,  the  divine 
and  the  human,  which  are  predicated  of  one  and  the  same 
person.  The  so-called  theandric  operation  of  the  God-Man 
is  not  one  action,  partly  human  and  partly  divine,  but  com 
prises  two  distinct  actions,  the  one  divine  and  the  other  human, 
each  originated  by  its  own  principle  and  both  together  indi 
cating  the  marvelous  union  that  was  effected  between  the  two 
natures.  Hence  Theodore  of  Pharas,  Cyrus  of  Alexandria, 
Sergius,  Pyrrhus,  and  Paul  of  Constantinople,  all  of  whom 
taught  the  contrary  doctrine,  are  condemned  as  heretics,  whilst 
the  Ecthesis  and  the  Typus  are  rejected  as  utterly  opposed  to 
the  true  faith.8 

As  soon  as  this  bold  action  of  Martin  became  known  to  the 
Emperor,  he  had  him  arrested  and  banished  to  Chersonesus, 
where  after  many  sufferings  for  the  sake  of  orthodoxy  the 
holy  Pontiff  died  on  September  16,  655.  Abbot  Maximus  and 
two  of  his  disciples,  both  called  Anastasius,  were  also  arrested 
and  subjected  to  most  cruel  tortures,  and  then  sent  into  banish 
ment. 

For  more  than  a  year  the  Roman  clergy  refused  to  elect  a 
new  Pope,  but  when  they  saw  that  the  Emperor  was  going 
to  appoint  a  Monothelite  to  the  see  of  Rome,  they  chose 
Eugenius,  who  on  the  death  of  Martin  became  legitimate  Pope. 
He  sent  two  legates  to  Constantinople  to  come  to  an  under 
standing  with  the  Emperor,  but  they  were  imposed  upon  by 
Greek  cunning  and  accepted  three  wills  in  Christ,  two  natural 
wills  and  one  hypostatic.  On  their  return  to  Rome  they  were 
very  badly  received ;  however  as  Eugenius  died  about  that  time, 
his  successors  Vitalian,  Adeodat,  and  Bonus,  allowed  the 
matter  to  rest.  It  was  the  next  Pope,  Agatho,  who  brought 
the  long  protracted  dispute  to  a  close. 

B  —  THE  SIXTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL 

The  Emperor  Constans  II  died  in  668,  and  was  succeeded 
by  Constantine  IV,  who  was  well  disposed  towards  the  cause 
of  orthodoxy.  Soon  after  Agatho's  accession  to  the  Papal 
throne,  an  understanding  was  reached  which  made  provision 

s  Cft  Hefele,  1.  c. 


THE  SIXTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL  429 

for  the  final  settlement  of  the  dispute.  The  Pope  ordered 
synods  to  be  held  all  through  the  West,  and  he  himself  held 
one  at  Rome,  to  give  the  orthodox  doctrine  its  definite  and 
permanent  form.  Immediately  after  the  synods  he  drew  up 
two  letters  to  the  Emperor,  one  in  his  own  name  and  one  in 
the  name  of  the  bishops  of  his  patriarchate,  the  contents  of 
the  two  being  essentially  the  same. 

In  these  letters  he  sets  forth  the  faith  of  the  Western  Church 
in  the  form  of  a  symbol,  and  when  he  comes  to  the  matter  in 
dispute  he  says :  "  When  we  confess  in  one  and  the  same 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  two  natures,  and  two  natural  wills,  and  two 
natural  operations,  we  do  not  say  that  they  are  contrary  or 
opposed  the  one  to  the  other,  .  .  .  nor,  on  the  other  hand, 
do  we  say  that  they  are  separate  in  two  persons  or  two  sub 
stances,  but  we  mean  that  the  same  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  He 
has  two  natures,  so  has  He  also  two  natural  wills  and  two 
natural  operations,  the  one  divine  and  the  other  human."  9 

As  soon  as  the  legates,  who  had  been  asked  for,  arrived  at 
Constantinople,  the  Emperor  summoned  the  bishops  of  the 
Patriarchates  of  Constantinople  and  Alexandria  for  a  con 
ference;  but  as  the  Patriarchs  of  Antioch  and  Jerusalem  also 
sent  their  representatives,  the  final  outcome  of  it  was  a  general 
council.  It  was  attended  by  164  bishops,  and  lasted  from  No 
vember  7,  680,  to  September  16,  68 1.  The  Emperor  himself 
presided,  but  only  for  the  sake  of  honor,  the  doctrinal  dis 
cussions  being  under  the  direction  of  the  Papal  legates,  who 
also  subscribed  their  names  to  the  Acts  before  all  the  other 
members  of  the  council. 

As  everyone  was  perfectly  free  to  state  his  own  views  on 
the  matter  in  question,  a  rather  lively  discussion  ensued  be 
tween  the  two  parties.  The  leaders  of  the  Monothelites  were 
Macarius  of  Antioch,  his  disciple  Stephen  who  was  a  monk, 
Peter  of  Nicomedia,  and  Solomon  of  Claneus.  The  Patriarch 
of  Constantinople  played  a  waiting  game.  The  discussion 
was  largely  occupied  with  the  examination  of  Patristic  testi 
mony,  in  which  the  orthodox  party  had  decidedly  the  advan 
tage,  especially  when  it  was  found  that  the  opposition  had 

9Mansi,  n,  234-286;  P.  L.  87,  1161-1213. 


430 


CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 


interpolated  certain  manuscripts  in  order  to  prove  their  point. 
However  Macarius  and  Stephen  would  yield  to  no  evidence, 
and  so  they  were  excommunicated.  The  dogmatic  letters  of 
Sergius  to  Cyrus  and  Honorius,  and  also  Honorius'  first  letter 
to  Sergius,  were  condemned  as  absolutely  in  disaccord  with 
Apostolic  teaching,  with  the  decisions  of  Councils,  and  the 
doctrine  of  the  holy  Fathers.  Several  other  documents, 
notably  the  second  letter  of  Honorius  to  Sergius,  were  like 
wise  declared  to  be  stained  with  the  same  impiety.  Finally, 
Sergius,  Cyrus,  Pyrrhus,  Peter  of  Nicomedia,  Paul  of  Con 
stantinople,  and  Theodore  of  Pharas  were  anathematized,  to 
gether  with  Honorius,  who  "  was  found  in  his  writings  to 
Sergius  to  have  followed  the  latter's  opinion,  and  to  have  con 
firmed  his  impious  doctrines."  10 

The  profession  of  faith  drawn  up  by  the  Council  is  prac 
tically  an  adaptation  of  Agatho's  letter  to  the  Emperor,  which, 
when  it  was  read,  was  acclaimed  by  the  assembled  bishops 
with  the  words:  "  Peter  has  spoken  through  Agatho."  The 
Emperor  sanctioned  all  that  was  done,  and  Leo  II,  who  had 
meanwhile  succeeded  Agatho,  confirmed  the  council.  He  also 
anathematized,  together  with  the  Monothelites,  "  Honorius, 
who  neglected  to  sanctify  this  Apostolic  Church  with  the  teach 
ing  of  Apostolic  tradition,  but  by  profane  treachery  allowed 
its  purity  to  be  polluted."  1X 

Thus  the  true  doctrine  was  defined,  which,  when  put  into 
our  modern  terminology,  comes  to  this :  "  According  to 
orthodox  teaching,  personality  is  not  an  active  principle,  but 
in  its  concrete  existence  forms  the  subject  of  predication.  The 
active  principle  in  any  and  every  person  is  his  nature  with  its 
inherent  faculties.  Hence  if  in  consequence  of  an  hypostatic 
union  there  are  two  natures  in  a  person,  there  must  be  two 
principles  of  action,  each  one  of  which  has  its  own  proper 
operation,  though  both  operations  are  rightly  and  necessarily 
predicated  of  one  and  the  same  person." 

It  was  in  respect  to  this  that  Sergius  and  his  followers  fell 
into  a  fundamental  error.  They  looked  upon  personality  as  an 

10Mansi,  11,  553-556.  n  Ibid.  753. 


THE  SIXTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL  431 

active  principle,  which  operates  physically  in  the  nature  it 
possesses  as  its  own.  This  once  assumed,  the  logical  inference 
was  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  never  acted  spontane 
ously,  of  its  own  initiative,  but  was  simply  used  as  a  physical 
instrument  of  the  divinity.  Thorough-going  Monophysites 
would,  of  course,  push  their  views  still  further,  practically 
regarding  the  human  faculties  of  the  Saviour  as  absorbed  by 
the  divine  energy.  Sergius  seems  to  have  stopped  short  of 
this  extreme  view,  admitting  as  he  did  that  the  human  faculties 
remained  distinct  after  the  union  of  the  two  natures,  but  he  as 
serted  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  had  no  initiative  of  its 
own,  and  could  therefore  act  only  in  so  far  as  it  was  moved 
by  the  all-powerful  will  of  the  Godhead.  Hence  the  Council 
defined  not  merely  the  existence  of  a  human  will  in  Christ,  but 
also  the  spontaneity  of  its  natural  operations. 

A  word  or  two  must  here  be  said  about  Honorius,  whose 
case  has  been  made  much  of  by  the  adversaries  of  Papal  in 
fallibility.  From  the  foregoing  account  it  seems  clear  that  the 
Sixth  General  Council  condemned  him  as  a  heretic,  and  that 
Leo  II  associated  him  with  the  Monothelites.  On  the  other 
hand,  John  IV  stated  expressly  that  Honorius  did  not  teach 
the  doctrine  of  one  will  or  of  one  operation  in  Christ,  and  the 
same  was  also  maintained  by  Abbot  Maximus,  who  took  a 
personal  part  in  the  discussions  then  going  on.  Hence  what 
ever  view  one  may  take  of  the  case,  it  would  seem  that  either 
the  Council  or  the  Pope,  or  perhaps  both  fell  into  a  dogmatic 
error. 

Quite  a  number  of  solutions  have  been  attempted,  but  most 
of  them  fail  to  convince.  Some  have  maintained  that  the  Acts 
of  the  Council  are  Greek  forgeries,  and  that  therefore  Honor 
ius  was  never  condemned  as  a  heretic.  Others  hold  the  Acts 
to  be  genuine,  but  contend  that  Honorius  was  condemned 
merely  for  negligence,  because  he  was  silent  at  the  wrong  time. 
Others,  again,  admit  the  genuineness  of  the  Acts  and  also  con 
cede  that  Honorius  was  condemned  for  heresy,  but  maintain 
that  the  Council  erred  in  a  dogmatic  fact,  condemning  an 
innocent  man.  This  solution  is  admissible,  since  the  council 
was  neither  presided  over  by  the  Pope  in  person  nor  had  the 


432  CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

legates  received  definite  instructions  to  bring  about  the  con 
demnation  of  Honorius;  hence  if  an  error  was  committed,  it 
was  under  conditions  that  do  not  warrant  infallibility  of  teach 
ing  as  inherent  in  a  general  council. 

However  a  more  satisfactory  solution  is  suggested  by 
Hefele,  who  holds  that  Honorius  did  not  teach  heresy  and 
that  his  condemnation  by  the  Council  was  not  a  dogmatic  error. 
The  first  he  shows  from  Honorius'  own  wrords,  which  contain 
the  true  doctrine  but  formulate  it  in  misleading  terms;  the 
second  he  explains  by  pointing  out  that  the  Council  was  con 
cerned  only  with  the  doctrine  as  expressed  by  the  author,  and 
in  this  sense  it  could  rightly  be  condemned.  Hence  the  council 
did  not  condemn  the  teaching  of  Honorius,  but  his  unlucky 
expressions  which  were  taken  advantage  of  by  the  Mono- 
physites.  This  may  very  well  be  maintained,  especially  as 
the  Pope  in  his  confirmation  of  the  Council  viewed  the  error 
of  Honorius  in  this  light.  For  he  associated  him  with  the 
Monothelites  only  in  this  sense,  that  he  had  "  neglected  to 
sanctify  this  Apostolic  Church  with  the  teaching  of  Apostolic 
tradition,  but  by  profane  treachery  allowed  its  purity  to  be 
polluted."  These  words  contain  a  severe  censure,  but  they 
do  not  charge  the  unfortunate  Honorius  with  positive  heretical 
teaching.12  It  may  be  added  that  if  he  did  teach  error,  it  was 
only  as  a  private  individual  and  not  in  his  capacity  of  Chief 
Shepherd;  for  in  neither  of  his  two  letters  does  he  speak  ex 
cathedra. 

12  Cfr.  Hefele,  o.  c.  V,  49  sqq. 


CHAPTER  XXIX 
CONTEMPORARY  CHRISTOLOGY:    ORTHODOX  MARIOLOGY 

From  the  account  given  in  the  preceding  chapters  of  the 
various  controversies  that  agitated  the  Christian  world  during 
the  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  centuries,  one  is  apt  to  carry  away 
the  impression  that  the  Church's  teaching  on  the  points  under 
discussion  was  vague  and  uncertain,  at  least  so  long  as  she  was 
not  called  upon  to  give  a  final  definition.  Yet  such  an  im 
pression  would  be  untrue  to  facts,  although  under  the  circum 
stances  apparently  well  founded.  Religious  controversies  are 
in  the  history  of  dogmas  what  wars  are  in  the  history  of 
nations.  If  they  are  recorded  at  all,  they  at  once  seem  to 
occupy  the  whole  field  of  vision,  causing  one  to  forget  that 
they  are  only  abnormal  incidents,  unduly  accentuating  for  a 
while  the  ambitious  strivings  of  a  few.  They  are  manifesta 
tions  of  passion  rather  than  of  reason,  or  at  best  a  manifesta 
tion  of  reason  misguided  in  its  quest  after  truth.  Hence  after 
recounting  the  story  of  the  conflict,  we  must  now  briefly  sum 
marize  the  results  achieved  during  times  of  peace;  this  alone 
can  give  us  a  correct  view  of  the  Church's  position  in  reference 
to  the  points  at  issue. 

A  —  CONTEMPORARY  CHRISTOLOGY 

What  the  West  thought  of  Christ  during  this  period  of 
conflict,  what  of  the  hypostatic  union,  and  what  of  the  con 
sequences  of  that  union,  is  sufficiently  clear  from  the  decisions 
concerning  these  matters  given  by  Eastern  councils.  For 
these  decisions  were  all  dictated  by  the  Popes,  and  the  Popes 
on  these  occasions  acted  as  spokesmen  for  the  Western  Church. 
The  definition  marked  out  for  Ephesus  by  Celestine,  for  Chal- 
cedon  by  Leo,  for  Constantinople  by  Agatho,  embodied  the 

433 


434          CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

traditional  teaching  of  the  entire  West  on  the  points  then 
under  discussion.  Always  deeply  conscious  of  its  sacred  heir 
loom  received  from  the  Apostolic  past,  the  West  struck  a 
happy  medium  between  the  two  extremes  of  Eastern  theologi 
cal  speculations,  represented  respectively  by  the  schools  of 
Antioch  and  Alexandria.  As  a  result,  not  only  did  the  West 
ern  Church  herself  keep  the  faith  intact,  but  with  a  strong 
hand  also  guided  the  East  through  all  dangers  of  going  astray, 
until  a  final  decision  was  reached  which  made  all  further  aber 
rations  practically  impossible. 

But  even  before  these  authoritative  decisions  were  given, 
individual  theologians  quite  clearly  presented  the  common 
teaching  on  the  points  in  question.  Thus  John  Cassian  in  his 
work  entitled,  De  Incarnatione  Christi,  which  was  written 
at  the  request  of  the  future  Pope  Leo  I,  anticipates  all  the 
definitions  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon.  Mary  is  truly  the 
Mother  of  God,  in  Christ  there  is  only  one  person,  that  of  the 
Word,  but  two  distinct  natures,  the  divine  and  the  human, 
each  one  preserving  in  the  union  its  own  natural  properties.1 
Fulgentius  of  Ruspe  is  equally  clear,  and  emphasizes  the  fact 
that  the  union  was  established  at  the  moment  of  conception, 
so  that  Mary  is  not  the  mother  of  the  Godhead  as  such,  nor  of 
the  humanity  by  itself,  but  of  the  Incarnate  God.2  The 
duality  of  natures  in  Christ  brings  with  it  the  duality  of  wills 
and  operations.  This  was  pointed  out  by  Leo  in  his  letter 
to  Flavian  when  the  Monothelite  controversy  was  still  a  matter 
of  the  future.  The  same  was  taught  by  other  theologians  of 
the  time,  as  for  instance  by  Maximus  of  Turin,  who  states 
quite  definitely :  "  In  one  and  the  same  Redeemer  there  are 
two  distinct  operations,  of  the  divinity  and  of  the  humanity."  3 
Whilst  Agatho,  in  his  letter  which  was  accepted  by  the  Sixth 
General  Council,  explains  the  doctrine  in  detail.  In  fact,  all 
this  was  already  fully  understood  by  the  Fathers  of  the  fourth 
century,  as  has  been  pointed  out  in  previous  chapters. 

During  the  time  that  the  discussions  with  the  East  were 
going  on,  Boethius,  though  a  philosopher  rather  than  a  theo- 

!De  Incarn.  Christi,  2,  24;  5,  i;          2  Ep.  17,  7,  12. 
6,  13,  22.  8Serm.  117. 


CONTEMPORARY  CHRISTOLOGY 


435 


logian,  endeavored  to  bring  about  a  better  understanding  by  a 
proper  definition  of  terms.  He  gave  the  Latin  equivalents  of 
ovo-t'a,  wroorao-ts,  and  irpovwirov,  as  nature,  substance,  and  per 
son.4  His  definitions  of  nature  and  person  have  become 
classical.  According  to  him,  nature  is  that  which  constitutes 
the  specific  difference  of  things :  "  Natura  est  unamquamque 
rem  informans  specifica  differentia ; " 5  whilst  a  person  is 
the  individually  existing  substance  of  rational  nature :  "  Per 
sona  est  naturae  rationalis  individua  substantial 6  Cassio- 
dorus,  his  contemporary,  gives  a  somewhat  similar  definition, 
understanding  by  person  a  rational  and  individually  existing 
substance,  distinguished  by  its  own  properties  from  others  of 
its  kind :  "  Persona  hominis  est  substantia  rationalis,  in 
dividua,  suis  proprietatibus  a  consubstantialibus  caeteris 
segregata."  7 

Theological  writers  of  the  East,  even  whilst  defending  the 
same  doctrines,  showed  less  agreement  in  the  manner  of  pre 
senting  and  explaining  their  views.  This,  as  has  already  been 
pointed  out,  was  owing  to  the  difference  of  viewpoints  of  the 
theological  schools  of  Antioch  and  Alexandria.  Both  schools 
as  such  were  perfectly  orthodox,  although  in  either  the  one 
or  the  other  all  the  chief  heretics  of  the  time  had  received  their 
training.  The  best  representative  of  the  Alexandrian  school 
was  Cyril,  who  championed  the  cause  of  orthodoxy  against 
Nestorius.  Although  handicapped  by  an  imperfect  termin 
ology,  he  almost  rivaled  Leo  in  depth  of  thought  and  precision 
of  doctrine.  His  Christological  views  have  been  given  in  con 
nection  with  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  and  need  not  be  repeated 
here.  Of  the  Antiochene  school  we  have  a  fair  representative 
in  Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  the  ablest  opponent  of  Cyril  in  the 
Nestorian  controversy.  A  few  remarks  on  his  Christological 
teaching  will  be  in  place. 

He  starts  out  with  the  assumption  that  before  the  union  there 
was  only  one  nature,  the  divine  nature  of  the  Word.  The 
human  nature  of  Christ  never  existed  apart ;  it  was  in  its  very 
production  united  to  the  Godhead,  and  hence  it  never  was  a 

4  Cont.  Eutych.  et  Nest.  3.  «  Ibid.   3. 

5  Ibid.  i.  7  in   ps.  7. 


436          CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

human  person.8  After  the  union  there  were  in  Christ  two 
natures,  the  nature  assumed  and  the  nature  assuming,  of  which, 
however,  he  frequently  speaks  as  if  they  were  two  persons  as 
well.9  Bardenhewer  and  others  maintain  that  in  his  earlier 
writings  against  Cyril,  Theodoret  defended  the  Nestorian 
thesis  of  a  double  hypostasis  in  Christ;  but  it  would  perhaps 
be  truer  to  say  that  Theodoret  did  not  interpret  the  Nestorian 
thesis  as  postulating  a  double  hypostasis  at  all.  If  it  is  true, 
as  is  held  by  many,  that  he  was  the  author  of  the  Union  Creed, 
this  conclusion  becomes  unavoidable.  For  at  the  time  he  was 
still  a  friend  of  Nestorius,  and  yet  the  unity  of  person  in 
Christ  as  well  as  the  divine  motherhood  of  Mary  are  quite 
clearly  brought  out  in  the  Creed  thus  ascribed  to  him.  And 
even  if  he  was  not  its  author,  he  certainly  accepted  it  as  his 
own  profession  of  faith.  It  is  true,  his  writings  were  later  on 
condemned  by  the  Fifth  General  Council;  but  that  does  not 
necessarily  mean  that  he  was  heterodox  in  so  far  as  his  own 
subjective  faith  came  in  question.  They  were  condemned  only 
in  their  obvious  sense,  which,  owing  to  the  author's  faulty  way 
of  expressing  himself,  was  sufficiently  at  variance  with  ortho 
dox  teaching  to  call  for  condemnation,  as  will  appear  from  the 
following  paragraphs. 

In  the  union,  according  to  Theodoret,  each  nature  preserves 
its  own  properties  and  natural  mode  of  action;  but  there  is 
between  them  a  conjunction,  an  indwelling,  and  intimate  union, 
which,  indeed  is  a  matter  of  complacency  and  grace,  but  it  is 
not  merely  a  moral  union;  it  is  physical  in  such  wise  that 
Christ  is  only  one  person  and  one  incarnate  Son  of  God.10 
This  is,  however,  the  weakest  part  of  his  teaching,  and  gave 
the  greatest  offense  to  his  orthodox  opponents.  Whilst  he 
rejects  the  purely  sympathetic  and  mechanical  union  advocated 
by  Nestorius,  he  seems  ever  afraid  of  making  it  too  close. 
This  is  partly  owing  to  the  traditions  of  his  school,  and  partly 
also  to  his  dread  of  Apollinarianism,  which  he  thought  was 
lurking  under  the  terms  used  by  Cyril. 

He  admits  the  necessary  consequences  of  such  a  union,  the 

8Eranist.  2.  10  Eranist.  2. 

9  Ibid.  De  Incarn.  Dom.  18. 


CONTEMPORARY  CHRISTOLOGY  437 

communicatio  idiomatum  and  the  Divine  Motherhood  of  the 
Virgin,  though  always  with  some  reserve.  Thus  Mary  is  truly 
Theotokos,  Mother  of  God,  as  she  "  is  called  by  the  masters 
of  piety,"  yet  he  points  out  that  by  the  same  "  masters  of 
piety  "  she  is  also  termed  "  Mother  of  man."  1X  If  she  bore 
the  Word  of  God  incarnate  in  human  nature,  she  likewise  bore 
the  man  who  had  been  assumed  by  the  Word.  Nor  was  Cyril 
justified  in  ascribing  sufferings  and  death  to  the  Word  of  God. 
It  was  not  God  who  was  crucified;  but  the  man  Jesus  Christ, 
who  was  of  the  seed  of  David,  the  son  of  Abraham.12  This 
apparent  inconsistency,  which  admitted  a  real  union  and  yet 
hesitated  to  recognize  all  its  consequences,  may  perhaps  partly 
be  ascribed  to  a  misunderstanding  of  Cyril's  teaching.  When 
Cyril  attributed  the  death  of  the  cross  to  the  Incarnate  Word 
of  God,  Theodoret  seems  to  have  understood  this  as  referring 
to  the  divine  nature  in  itself,  which  was  at  best  a  blundering 
misconception. 

There  are  two  other  writers  belonging  to  this  period,  though 
not  so  directly  connected  with  either  school,  who  deserve 
special  mention.  The  first  of  these  is  Leontius  of  Byzantium, 
who  wrote  in  the  early  part  of  the  sixth  century.  Cardinal 
Mai,  who  first  edited  most  of  his  works  in  the  original  Greek, 
declared  him  to  be  the  foremost  theologian  of  his  epoch.  He 
is  the  author  of  three  books  against  the  Nestorians  and 
Eutychians,  in  the  preface  of  which  he  says :  "  I  shall 
demonstrate  the  thesis  that  the  nature  of  the  divinity  of  Christ 
and  the  nature  of  His  humanity  existed  and  continued  to  exist 
after  the  union :  afterwards  I  shall  treat  of  the  mutual  rela 
tions  of  these  two  natures  and  their  modes  of  existence  "  ;  both 
of  which,  says  Bardenhewer,  he  has  done  in  an  admirable 
manner.13 

He  begins  with  a  definition  of  terms,  in  which  he  largely 
utilizes  the  Categories  of  Aristotle.  As  regards  the  sup- 
positum  or  person,  he  follows  the  teaching  of 'the  Cappado- 

11  De  Incarn.  35.  imus  has  in  part  been  taken  from 

12  Serm.  fragm.  P.  G.  84,  62.  the  account  given  by  Tixeront,  H. 

13  The  following  summary  of  the  D.  Ill,  145-153,   180-185. 
Christology  of  Leontius  and  Max- 


438  CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

cians,  indentifying  it  simply  with  the  individual  nature  in  so 
far  as  it  exists  apart,  independently,  and  in  consequnece  being 
sui  juris.  Hence  he  writes :  "  Nature  implies  the  idea  of 
being  simply,  but  hypostasis  the  further  idea  of  being  apart; 
the  former  indicates  the  species,  the  latter  bears  reference  to 
the  individual;  the  former  connotes  the  universal,  the  latter 
separates  the  proper  from  the  common.  Hence  the  notion  of 
hypostasis  is  realized  only  in  beings  that  are  identical  in  nature 
but  numerically  distinct,  or  in  such  as  result  from  different 
natures  that  have  an  hypostasis  in  common."  A  person, 
therefore,  is  a  complete  nature  existing  independently,  not 
united  to  a  whole  of  which  it  is  a  constituent  part  in  any  sense. 

After  this  definition  of  terms,  he  proceeds  to  consider  the 
human  nature  of  Christ.  As  every  individual  nature  must  in 
some  way  be  completed  by  an  hypostasis,  Christ's  human 
nature  also  demands  this  complement;  yet  it  does  not  exist 
apart,  independently;  it  has  no  hypostasis  of  its  own,  and  as 
such  it  is  not  "  wrooraTos " :  still  it  exists,  and  therefore  it  is 
not  "  dvinrooraTos,"  which  would  make  it  a  mere  abstraction; 
but  it  exists  in  the  Word,  it  is  completed  by  the  hypostasis  of 
the  Word,  and  in  consequence  it  is  "  ewTroo-Taros." 

But  is  such  an  inexistence  possible?  The  author  adduces 
several  analogous  examples,  which  in  some  way  illustrate  the 
mystery.  Thus  the  specifying  and  individuating  notes  have  a 
somewhat  similar  inexistence,  as  on  the  one  hand  they  are  not 
simple  accidents,  and  on  the  other  they  are  not  parts  of  sub 
sisting  natures.  Something  similar,  again,  we  see  in  the 
human  compositum,  where  soul  and  body  constitute  a  whole, 
yet  retain  their  own  nature.  Of  course,  these  are  only  ex 
amples,  and  must  not  be  pushed  too  far  in  their  application. 
They  illustrate  to  some  extent,  but  do  not  explain  the  mystery. 

Now  this  view  of  the  matter  excludes  both  the  Nestorian 
and  the  Eutychian  heresy.  For  although  the  Word  assumed  a 
complete  and  perfect  nature,  yet  that  nature  does  not  exist 
apart,  is  not  sui  juris;  it  is  but  a  part  of  the  whole,  and  there 
fore  not  a  person :  hence  Christ  is  only  one  person,  the  person 
of  the  Word,  having  two  natures.  On  the  other  hand,  as  the 


CONTEMPORARY  CHRISTOLOGY 


439 


followers  of  Eutyches  admit  that  the  specific  characteristics  of 
human  nature  are  in  Christ,  they  are  forced  to  admit  that 
human  nature  itself  is  also  there,  since  the  two  are  inseparable ; 
and  consequently  they  must  confess  that  Christ  has  two  na 
tures,  although  He  is  only  one  person. 

True,  the  union  of  soul  and  body,  which  had  been  used  as 
an  illustration,  results  in  one  nature ;  but  this  is  owing  to  their 
innate  relation  to  one  another,  whereby  they  constitute  a 
species  that  admits  of  several  individuals.  The  same  result 
cannot  have  place  in  the  union  of  human  nature  with  the  person 
of  the  Word.  In  this  union  both  elements  are  complete,  and 
so  the  result  of  the  union  cannot  be  a  new  nature  —  a  nature 
divinely  human,  which  would  make  Christ  a  species  instead 
of  an  individual. 

To  the  objection  of  Severus,  one  of  the  Monophysite  leaders, 
that  if  two  natures  be  admitted,  two  operations  must  also  be 
admitted,  and  this  in  its  turn  must  lead  to  the  admission  of 
two  persons  in  Christ,  he  replies :  "  The  distinction  of  the 
natures  does  indeed  imply  the  distinction  of  operations,  since 
operation  is,  after  all,  only  nature  in  action ;  but  this  in  no  way 
interferes  with  the  unity  of  person.  It  is  not  the  distinction 
of  the  natures,  whether  in  action  or  otherwise,  but  their  sepa 
ration  that  divides  the  person." 

In  all  this  the  Byzantine  philosophizing  theologian  is  cer 
tainly  orthodox,  and  if  at  times,  in  other  connections,  he  seems 
to  speak  against  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  it  is  not  because 
of  the  doctrine  that  was  there  proposed,  but  rather  because 
of  the  terms  in  which  that  doctrine  was  defined.  All  in  all, 
he  did  yeoman's  service  in  the  cause  of  orthodox  Christology, 
and  paved  the  way  for  many  a  subtile  distinction  of  the 
Scholastic  age. 

The  second  theologian  who  deserves  special  mention  in  this 
connection  is  Abbot  Maximus.  He  was  to  the  seventh  century 
what  Leontius  was  to  the  sixth,  but  he  approaches  more  closely 
to  the  Western  concept  of  Christological  teaching.  This  may 
be  accounted  for  by  his  long  stay  in  the  West  and  his  intimate 
association  with  John  IV  and  Martin  I  in  their  struggles 


440          CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

against  Monothelism.  He  was  both  a  mystic  and  a  dogmatic 
theologian,  and  his  writings  were  much  appreciated  for  many 
centuries  after  his  death. 

In  his  theological  discussions  he  makes  free  use  of  the 
technique  and  definitions  of  Aristotle,  and  thus  he  may  be 
accounted  as  one  of  the  earliest  Scholastics.  "  The  God-Man 
is  always  the  center  of  his  dogmatic  teachings.  The  Logos 
is  for  him  the  origin  and  end  of  all  created  beings.  The  his 
tory  of  the  world  develops  along  two  great  lines:  the  first  is 
the  Incarnation  of  God  predestined  from  the  beginning  and 
accomplished  historically  in  the  fullness  of  time;  the  second 
is  the  deification  of  man  that  begins  with  the  Incarnation  of 
God  and  will  be  finally  accomplished  through  the  restoration 
of  the  divine  image  in  man.  As  the  beginning  of  the  new  life 
and  the  second  Adam,  Christ  is  necessarily  true  God  and  per 
fect  man.  The  difference  of  the  natures  in  Christ  does  not 
imply  a  division  of  personality,  nor  does  the  unity  of  the  latter 
imply  a  commingling  of  the  natures.  On  the  contrary,  given 
two  whole  and  perfect  natures,  there  must  be  also  two  wills 
and  two  natural  activities  or  energies."  14  Hence  whilst  there 
is  one  person  in  Christ,  there  are  two  natures  and  two  opera 
tions,  the  latter  naturally  resulting  from  the  two  distinct  wills. 

This  leads  him  to  speak  of  the  nature  of  activity.  Some  sort 
of  activity  is  essential  to  every  existing  being ;  a  being  without 
any  sort  of  activity  is  simply  a  nonentity.  Now  this  essential 
activity  always  corresponds  to  the  nature  of  the  being  whose 
activity  it  is,  and  it  is  proximately  by  their  activities  that  beings 
are  distinguished  from  one  another.  Its  principle  or  source  is 
nature  in  the  concrete,  not  personality  as  such,  although  per 
sonality  imparts  to  it  its  moral  value.  Hence  it  will  not  do 
to  say  that  Christ's  human  nature  is  so  subordinated  to  the 
divine  that  it  is  a  mere  instrument  which  has  no  activity  of  its 
own.  This  would  be  to  destroy  His  human  nature  as  Apol- 
linaris  did.  Nor  will  it  do  to  call  His  human  nature  a  merely 
extrinsic  instrument,  for  that  would  be  to  divide  His  person 
as  was  done  by  Nestorius. 

It  is  true,  Cyril  speaks  of  "  one  connatural  energy,"  but  this 

^Cfr.  Bardenhewer,  Patrol.  578,579. 


ORTHODOX  MARIOLOGY 


441 


expression  he  uses  in  reference  to  a  particular  case,  as  when 
Christ  by  His  omnipotence  worked  a  miracle  with  the  concur 
rence  of  His  human  nature.  His  hands  touched  the  sick  per 
son,  and  His  omnipotent  power  restored  him  to  health.  It 
was  morally  one  action,  yet  physically  it  was  made  up  of  two 
distinct  activities.  In  a  somewhat  similar  sense  does  the  Areo- 
pagite  say  that  because  of  the  union  of  the  two  natures  in 
Christ  there  results  "  a  certain  new  theandric  energy  " ;  for 
by  this  he  only  points  to  the  circuminsession  of  the  two  natures, 
which,  although  they  have  each  their  own  proper  activity,  yet 
by  reason  of  their  intimate  union  and  perfect  harmony  act  as 
one. 

However  the  presence  of  a  twofold  activity  in  Christ  does 
not  imply  that  the  human  nature  is  in  its  actions  altogether 
independent  of  the  divine.  In  itself  the  human  will  is  vacillat 
ing  and  imperfect,  because  of  the  limitations  of  the  human  in 
tellect  which  serves  it  as  a  guide.  In  order  to  make  it  firm 
in  the  pursuance  of  good,  it  must  be  illumined  by  a  perfect 
knowledge,  which  comes  to  it  through  the  union  with  the  Word. 
Moreover,  although  the  will  in  itself  is  essential  to  a  perfect 
nature,  its  manner  of  acting  is  under  the  direction  of  the  per 
son;  and  in  so  far  the  human  will  of  Christ  was  directed  by 
His  divine  will.  Hence  Christ  had  indeed  a  free  human  will, 
but  not  one  that  was  impaired  by  human  defects.  This  is  the 
only  difference  between  His  human  will  and  ours.  Whilst  our 
will  can  always  lapse  into  sin,  His  could  not ;  it  was  a  perfect 
will  as  demanded  by  the  hypostatic  union.  For  by  reason  of 
this  every  act  of  the  human  will  in  Christ  is  attributable  to  the 
person  of  the  Word. 

All  this  reasoning,  which  is  purely  and  eminently  Scholastic, 
the  author  supports  by  copious  citations  from  Holy  Scripture 
and  the  writings  of  the  early  Fathers.  In  this,  too,  he  was 
a  worthy  forerunner  of  the  Angel  of  the  Schools. 

B  —  ORTHODOX  MARIOLOGY 

Here  seems  to  be  the  best  place  for  gathering  together  the 
teaching  of  the  Fathers  concerning  the  Blessed  Mother  of 
God/  In  this  as  well  as  in  their  teaching  on  Christ,  there  is 


442  CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

noticeable  a  constant  development,  which  received  a  new  im 
pulse  from  the  definition  of  her  Divine  Motherhood  by  the 
Council  of  Ephesus.  Whilst  the  bishops,  gathered  in  that 
solemn  assembly,  voiced  the  faith  of  the  past,  they  at  the  same 
time  offered  fresh  incentive  to  the  pious  veneration  of  the 
future.  Hence  taking  our  stand  at  the  Council,  we  may  at 
once  look  backward  and  forward  and  so  observe  at  a  glance 
what  development  there  was  in  Mariological  teaching  from 
Nicsea  to  the  end  of  the  Patristic  age. 

As  was  pointed  out  in  the  general  summary  of  Antenicene 
theology,  the  Divine  Motherhood  of  Mary  and  her  close  asso 
ciation  with  the  Saviour  in  the  work  of  redemption  were  uni 
versally  accepted  as  a  matter  of  orthodox  belief  during  the  first 
three  centuries  of  the  Christian  era.  Justin,  Irenaeus,  and 
Tertullian  spoke  of  her  as  the  cause  of  our  salvation  and  our 
advocate  with  God.  To  them  she  was  the  sinless  Virgin,  who 
by  her  obedience  restored  what  had  been  ruined  by  the  dis 
obedience  of  Eve.  There  is  little  in  the  line  of  records  from 
which  it  might  be  inferred  that  she  was  made  the  object  of  a 
special  religious  veneration  by  the  faithful  of  those  early 
times,  but  we  know  that  her  place  in  orthodox  theology  was 
already  clearly  defined. 

The  Fathers  of  the  fourth  century  adopted  the  views  of  their 
predecessors,  and  developed  them  as  occasion  required.  Those 
of  the  East  defended  her  Divine  Motherhood  against  the 
Arians,  and  her  perpetual  virginity  against  the  Antidicomari- 
anites.  "  The  Word  that  was  from  all  eternity  born  of  the 
Father,"  says  Athanasius,  "  the  same  was  in  time  born  of  the 
Virgin,  the  Mother  of  God."  15  "If  any  one  does  not  believe 
that  Holy  Mary  is  the  Mother  of  God,"  writes  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus,  "  he  is  separated  from  the  Divinity."  16  Epiphan- 
ius  calls  her  "  Virgo  in  partu  et  post  partum,"  17  and  in  another 
place  he  asks :  "  What  man  ever  was  there  at  any  time,  who 
presumed  to  mention  the  name  of  Holy  Mary  and  did  not 
immediately  add,  Virgin?  .  .  .  Thus  the  title  of  virgin  was 
given  to  Holy  Mary,  nor  shall  it  ever  be  changed;  for  this 

15  De  Incarn.  8.  17  Adv.  Haer.  88,  18. 

16  Ep.  101. 


ORTHODOX  MARIOLOGY  443 

holy  one  remained  incorrupt."  18  Didymus  speaks  of  her  as 
"  ever  Virgin,  always  and  in  all  things  Virgin  undefiled."  19 
Similar  terms  were  used  by  Amphilochius,  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suestia,  and  others;  whilst  some  among  the  faithful,  who  had 
more  zeal  than  discretion,  formed  at  this  time  a  special  sect, 
called  the  Collyridians,  who  went  so  far  as  to  offer  sacrifices 
to  her  as  if  she  were  a  goddess.  These,  of  course,  were  dis 
owned  by  the  Church. 

Among  the  Eastern  Fathers  of  this  period  it  was  especially 
St.  Ephrem  of  Nisibis  in  Syria  who  sang  her  praises  in  most 
eloquent  strains.  "  O  Thou  Virgin  Lady,"  he  addresses  her, 
"  Thou  Immaculate  Mother  of  God,  my  most  glorious  Mistress, 
most  generously  kind,  Thou  art  higher  than  the  heavens,  much 
purer  than  the  resplendent  rays  and  brightness  of  the  sun. 
.  .  .  Thou  art  the  fruitful  rod  of  Aaron,  Thou  didst  appear 
as  the  true  Virgin,  and  the  flower  Thou  bearest  is  truly  Thy 
Son  our  Christ,  my  God  and  my  Maker;  Thou  didst  bring 
forth  God  the  Word  according  to  the  flesh,  keeping  Thy  vir 
ginity  unstained  before  His  birth,  and  after  His  birth  Thou 
didst  remain  a  virgin."  20  And  in  another  place,  addressing 
the  Saviour,  he  says :  "  Indeed,  Thou  and  Thy  Mother  are 
the  only  ones  who  are  altogether  beautiful;  for  in  Thee,  O 
Lord,  there  is  no  sin,  and  in  Thy  Mother  there  is  no  stain. 
But  my  children  are  in  no  wise  like  unto  these  two  examples 
of  perfect  beauty."  21  This  evidently  implies  the  Immaculate 
Conception,  although  the  author  may  not  have  had  the  idea 
clearly  in  his  mind. 

As  regards  her  freedom  from  even  the  slightest  personal 
faults,  there  seems  to  have  been  some  difference  of  opinion 
among  the  fourth-century  writers  in  the  East.  Whilst  the  ma 
jority  extol  her  holiness  without  reference  to  anything  repre 
hensible  either  in  her  character  or  conduct,  Chrysostom  thinks 
that  she  was  moved  by  vanity  when  at  the  marriage  feast  in 
Cana  she  asked  her  Son  to  provide  the  necessary  wine ;  22  and 
that,  when  she  wished  to  speak  to  Jesus  whilst  He  was  ad- 

18  Ibid.  78,  6.  21  Carm.  Nisib.  27,  8. 

1&De  Trin.  i,  27.  22  In  Joan.  21. 

20Orat.   ad   Sanct.  Dei  Matrem. 


444  CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

dressing  the  multitude,  she  was  guilty  of  imperiousness.23 
Similarly  Basil  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  who  interpret  the 
prophecy  of  Simeon  as  implying  that  Mary  was  moved  by 
a  doubt  in  the  divinity  of  Jesus  whilst  she  was  standing  under 
the  Cross.24  But  these  are  exceptions  that  do  not  effect  the 
common  view  that  Mary's  holiness  was  in  every  way  perfect. 

The  Western  writers  are  equally  definite  when  speaking  of 
Mary's  position  in  the  economy  of  salvation,  and  of  her  unex 
ampled  holiness  and  prerogatives.  "  O  wonderful  mystery," 
exclaims  Zeno,  "  Mary  conceived  as  an  undefiled  virgin,  as  a 
virgin  she  brought  forth  her  child,  and  a  virgin  she  remained 
after  His  birth."  25  Her  praises  were  especially  celebrated  by 
Ambrose,  who  pointed  to  her  as  the  "  Virginitatis  Magistra." 
"  Exalted  therefore  is  Mary,  who  unfurled  the' banner  of  holy 
virginity,  and  raised  the  standard  of  undefiled  integrity.  .  .  . 
Non  deficit  Maria,  non  deficit  virginitatis  magistra."  26  In 
another  place  he  seems  to  allude  to  her  immaculate  conception : 
for  addressing  Christ,  he  says :  "  Receive  me  in  the  flesh 
which  has  fallen  in  Adam.  Receive  me  not  from  Sara,  but 
from  Mary ;  that  she  may  be  an  undefiled  virgin,  but  a  virgin 
through  grace,  free  from  all  stain  of  sin."  27 

Mary's  prerogative  of  perpetual  virginity  was  also  staunchly 
defended  by  Jerome,  who  wrote  against  Helvidius  and  Jovi- 
nian.  Both  resuscitated  the  singular  and  forgotten  opinion  of 
Tertullian,  that  Mary  had  lost  her  virginity  in  the  birth  of 
Christ.  Helvidius  furthermore  contended  that  she  had  become 
the  mother  of  other  children,  to  whom  Holy  Scripture  refers 
as  the  brothers  and  sisters  of  Jesus.  In  refuting  these  heretics, 
Jerome  rejected  the  authority  of  Tertullian  as  of  one  who 
did  not  belong  to  the  Church,  gave  an  orthodox  interpretation 
of  the  pertinent  Scripture  texts,  based  upon  the  Jewish  custom 
of  applying  the  terms  brother  and  sister  to  near  relations,  and 
then  summed  up  the  traditional  teaching  on  the  subject  in  the 
terse  sentence :  "  That  God  was  born  of  a  virgin  we  believe, 
because  this  we  read;  that  Mary  ceased  to  be  a  virgin  after 

23  In  Matt.  44,  i.  26  De  Instit.  Virg.  35,  45. 

24  Ep.  259;  In  Joan,  ig,  25.  27  In  Ps.  118,  22,  30. 

25  Tract  2,  8,  2. 


ORTHODOX  MARIOLOGY  445 

the  birth  of  her  Son,  we  do  not  believe,  because  this  we  do 
not  read."  28 

St.  Augustine,  too,  always  speaks  of  the  Mother  of  God  with 
the  greatest  reverence,  and  in  one  striking  passage  brings  out 
her  absolute  sinlessness.  "  When  there  is  question  of  sin," 
he  writes,  "  I  do  not  wish  to  have  the  Virgin  Mary  so  much 
as  mentioned,  out  of  respect  for  the  Lord."  29  Because  the 
Son  is  without  sin,  therefore  the  Mother  must  also  be  without 
sin.  This  statement  many  theologians  interpret  as  a  declara 
tion  of  Mary's  immaculate  conception;  and  although  the  text 
is  directly  concerned  only  with  actual  or  personal  sins,  the 
interpretation  may  well  stand.  For  in  another  place  the  au 
thor  lays  down  the  rule  that  no  one  can  be  free  from  personal 
sin  unless  he  was  preserved  from  the  original  stain.30  It  is 
true,  in  the  same  text  he  actually  exempts  only  Christ  from 
having  incurred  the  sin  of  Adam;  but  it  may  well  be  that  in 
this  he  pointed  to  Christ's  inherent  right  to  be  so  preserved. 
Christ  had  a  right  to  be  immune  from  original  sin ;  Mary  was 
immune  from  it  through  grace.  That  this  distinction  was  in 
the  author's  mind,  may  be  inferred  from  another  text.  For 
when  Julian  of  Eclanum  accused  him  of  involving  Mary  her 
self  in  guilt  by  his  theory  of  original  sin,  he  replied:  "We 
do  not  transfer  Mary  to  the  devil's  book  owing  to  the  law 
of  birth;  but  the  reason  we  do  not,  is  that  this  law  is  broken 
by  the  grace  of  being  born  again."  31  This  reply  has  really 
no  sense  except  on  the  supposition  that  Augustine  meant  to 
assert  Mary's  preservation  from  original  sin. 

It  can  indeed  not  be  denied  that  there  are  other  texts  in  Au 
gustine's  writings,  which  seem  to  imply  that  in  his  view  Mary 
had  incurred  the  common  guilt.  Thus  in  one  place  he  sets  up 
the  general  principle,  that  exemption  from  original  sin  pre 
supposes  a  virginal  birth  in  the  person  so  exempted.32  He 
also  calls  Mary's  body  simply  a  body  of  sin,  whereas  he  speaks 
of  the  body  of  her  Son  as  being  in  the  likeness  of  a  body  of 
sin.33  But  in  view  of  what  was  said  in  the  preceding  para- 

28  Advers.   Helvid.   19.  32  Cont.  Jul.  5,  52. 

29  De  Nat.  et  Grat.  42.  33  Cont.  Jul.  Opus  Imperf .  4,  79 ; 

30  Cont.  Jul.  5,  15,  57-  6,  22. 

31  Opus  Imperf.  Cont.  Jul.  4,  122. 


446  CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 

graph,  it  is  more  than  likely  that  in  these  and  similar  passages 
the  author  had  in  mind  only  the  general  law  according  to  which 
original  sin  is  transmitted;  leaving  aside  for  the  moment  all 
consideration  of  what  might  be  effected  by  a  special  grace  of 
God.  Hence  it  would  seem  that  Augustine  may  reasonably  be 
appealed  to  as  an  authority  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Immaculate 
Conception.  And  for  the  rest  also  he  is  very  explicit  in  ex 
tolling  Mary's  sanctity. 

However,  whilst  the  Mother  of  God  thus  occupied  a  promi 
nent  place  in  the  love  and  veneration  of  the  faithful,  there  are 
no  records  of  any  feasts  having  been  celebrated  in  her  honor 
during  the  fourth  century.  Etheria  or  Silvia,  in  her  Pere- 
grinatio,  makes  indeed  mention  of  the  Presentation  in  the  Tem 
ple,  which  was  celebrated  during  her  stay  in  Jerusalem  in  360, 
but  she  does  not  associate  it  with  the  Blessed  Virgin.  As 
gathered  from  her  narrative,  it  commemorated  the  presenta 
tion  of  the  child  Jesus  forty  days  after  His  birth,  and  occurred 
on  the  1 4th  of  February,  Epiphany  then  still  holding  the  place 
of  Christmas.  On  the  other  hand,  even  at  that  early  date 
many  churches  were  dedicated  to  the  Mother  of  God,  as  among 
others  was  the  church  at  Ephesus,  "  Holy  Mary,"  in  which  the 
Third  General  Council  was  held.  Her  images,  too,  were  in 
use  among  the  faithful,  as  we  learn  from  recent  discoveries  in 
the  catacombs;  but  whether  religious  veneration  was  paid  to 
them  is  not  so  certain. 

Such,  then,  was  the  place  which  the  Virgin  Mary  held  in 
the  hearts  of  the  faithful  and  in  the  teaching  of  the  Church 
when  the  Council  of  Ephesus  officially  declared  her  to  be  truly 
the  Mother  of  God.  From  that  time  forward  devotion  to  her 
became  even  more  intense  and  widespread.  The  splendid  en 
comiums  pronounced  on  her  virtues  and  privileges  by  Cyril 
of  Alexandria  found  an  echo  in  all  subsequent  ages.  Not  only 
her  perpetual  virginity,  but  also  her  absolute  sinlessness  was 
universally  accepted  as  necessarily  implied  in  her  dignity  of 
Divine  Motherhood.  And  this  sinlessness,  at  least  as  inter 
preted  in  the  East,  was  understood  to  imply  also  immunity 
from  the  original  stain.  It  is  true,  this  is  nowhere  stated  in 
so  many  words,  but  the  terms  used  by  the  writers  subsequent 


ORTHODOX  MARIOLOGY  447 

to  the  Council  of  Ephesus  can  hardly  mean  anything  less. 
Hers,  they  say,  is  a  holiness  so  complete  that  it  admits  of  no 
stain,  so  great  that  it  places  her  above  the  Apostles  and  the 
angels,  so  altogether  singular  that  it  makes  her  a  worthy  Medi 
atrix  between  heaven  and  earth.  Whatever  a  purely  human 
being  can  receive  from  the  hand  of  God,  that  is  found  in  Mary. 
This,  however,  was  not  so  universally  held  by  Western  writers. 
They  also  extolled  Mary's  sanctity  and  reverenced  her  with 
loving  devotion ;  but  many  of  them  seem  to  have  stopped  short 
of  believing  her  immune  from  original  sin.  In  fact,  Fulgen- 
tius  states  openly  that  she  was  conceived  in  sin  as  the  rest  of 
mankind ;  and  similar  expressions  are  found  in  the  writings  of 
Ferrandus,  Leo  I,  Gregory  I,  and  Venerable  Bede.34  They 
were  close  followers  of  Augustine,  and  it  seems  that  they  in 
terpreted  him  in  this  sense. 

It  is  also  after  the  Council  of  Ephesus  that  we  first  find  rec 
ords  of  feasts  being  celebrated  in  honor  of  the  Mother  of  God. 
The  second  Trullan  synod,  or  the  Quinisext,  held  in  692,  refers 
to  the  Annunciation  as  a  well  known  festival  of  our  Lady. 
The  feast  of  the  Visitation  originated  most  likely  in  Jerusalem 
early  in  the  sixth  century;  whilst  our  present  feast  of  that 
name,  celebrated  on  the  second  of  July,  dates  from  the  bringing 
of  the  Virgin's  veil  to  the  Blachernae  monastery  near  Constanti 
nople  in  478.  The  Dormition  of  the  Mother  of  God,  or  Mary's 
Assumption,  which  the  Emperor  Maurice  had  transferred  from 
the  iSth  of  January  to  the  I5th  of  August,  probably  reaches 
back  as  far  as  the  fifth  century,  since  belief  in  Mary's  bodily 
assumption  into  heaven  was  then  spreading  rapidly  both  in  the 
East  and  the  West.35  Mary's  Nativity  also,  commemorated 

34  Cfr.  Tixeront,  p.  c.  Ill,  409.  the  Mother  of  God  is  to  develop 

35  That    the   traditional   belief   in  and  establish  what  in  a  brief  and 
Mary's      bodily     assumption     into  almost   too    concise    a    manner   the 
heaven  reaches  back  to  the  earliest  son  has  inherited  from  the  father, 
Christian  centuries   is  very  likely;  according    to    the    common    saying 
but    there    is    no    direct    historical  (Horn.   2,   4.).    Yet,   on   the   other 
evidence    to    prove     it.     St.    John  hand,  St.  Epiphanius,  in  the  second 
Damascene  in  his  three  homilies  on  half  of  the   fourth   century,   seems 
the  Dormitio  represents  this  belief  to  have  been  unaware  of  the  ex- 
as  an  ancient  heirloom,  and  he  de-  istence  of  such  a  belief;  for  he  de 
clares    that    his    sole    purpose    in  clares     that     he     does     not  ^now 
preaching    on    the    Assumption    of  whether   the  Holy  Virgin   died   at 


448 


CHRISTOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSIES 


on  the  8th  of  September,  was  a  well  known  festival  in  the 
seventh  century.  Finally  the  feast  of  Mary's  Conception, 
which  the  Greeks  celebrate  on  the  gth  of  December,  was  ob 
served  in  some  Eastern  churches  from  the  beginning  of  the 
seventh  century  onwards.  All  of  these  festivals  had  their 
origin  in  the  East;  but,  with  the  exception  of  the  last  one,  they 
were  almost  immediately  adopted  in  the  West,  an  evident  sign 
that  both  Churches  were  at  one  in  their  reverence  for  the. 
Mother  of  God. 

And  this  brings  the  development  of  Mariology  practically 
to  a  close.  Many  new  feasts  have  since  been  introduced,  and  a 
variety  of  special  devotions  have  been  originated;  but  they 
have  contributed  little  to  the  further  development  of  Patristic 
teaching  in  this  respect.  Only  the  long  continued  discussion 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  during  the  Mid 
dle  Ages,  and  its  final  definition  by  Pius  IX  in  the  last  century, 
marked  a  forward  step;  although  even  this  forward  step  had 
been  well  prepared  for  by  the  Fathers  of  old. 

all,  or  was  buried  (De  Haer.  78, 
n).  About  a  century  later,  the 
Pseudo-Areopagite  gave  currency 
to  the  legend  that  the  Apostles 
opened  the  tomb  of  the  Virgin 
some  days  after  her  burial,  and  in 
stead  of  her  body  they  found 
therein  the  most  fragrant  lilies  (De 
Diy.  Nom.  3,  2).  However  as  his 
writings  were  almost  immediately 
rejected  as  apocryphal,  they  can 
have  had  little  to  do  with  the  grow 
ing  belief  in  Mary's  Assumption. 
The  first  undoubted  testimony  to 
the  firmly  established  belief  in  the 
Assumption  is  a  statement  of 
Gregory  of  Tours,  who  died  in  596. 
He  writes:  "The  Lord  com 
manded  the  holy  body  to  be  borne 
in  a  cloud  to  paradise,  where,  re 
united  to  its  soul,  and  exulting 


with  the  elect,  it  enjoys  the  never 
ending  bliss  of  eternity"  (Mirac.  I, 
4;  P.  L.  71,  708).  Of  the  same 
tenor  is  a  prayer  found  in  the 
Gregorian  Sacramentary,  which 
dates  probably  from  the  beginning 
of  the  seventh  century.  It  runs 


thus:  "Today's  festival  is  ven 
erable  to  us,  O  Lord,  because  on 
this  day  the  Blessed  Mother  of  God 
suffered  temporal  death,  but  it  was 
not  possible  that  she  who  gave 
birth  to  our  Incarnate  Lord,  Thy 
Son,  should  be  subjugated  by 
death"  (P.  L.  88,  133).  From  this 
time  on  references  to  the  fact  of 
the  Assumption  and  to  the  celebra 
tion  of  the  feast  become  quite 
numerous. 

The  dogmatic  reason  underlying 
the  belief  in  Mary's  bodily  As 
sumption  into  heaven  is  thus  stated 
by  St.  Germanus  of  Constantinople, 
who  died  in  733:  "Thou  hast  ob 
tained  the  honorable  title  of  Mother 
of  God,  .  .  .  therefore  it  was  be-  * 
coming  that  thy  body,  which  had  re 
ceived  into  itself  the  Life,  should 
not  be  enshrouded  in  death  by  cor 
ruption  (Orat.  in  Dormit.  B. 
Mariae,  2 ;  P.  G.  98,  359) .  Another 
reason  is,  of  course,  contained  in 
Mary's  immaculate  conception  and 
perpetual  virginity. 


CHAPTER  XXX 

THE  VENERATION   OF  THE  SAINTS:    THE  DOCTRINE  OF 
PURGATORY :    ESCHATOLOGICAL  VIEWS  * 

As  is  sufficiently  evident  from  what  has  been  said  in  the 
preceding  chapters,  the  dissensions  of  heretics  gave  a  strong 
impulse  to  the  development  of  orthodox  teaching  in  reference 
to  points  of  doctrine  which  they  called  in  question.  However 
development  took  place  also  along  other  lines,  independently 
of  all  controversy.  The.  Holy  Spirit  is  ever  active  in  the 
Church  of  Christ,  guiding  her  not  only  in  her  official  decisions 
and  formal  definitions,  but  also  in  the  faithful  discharge  of  her 
ordinary  duties,  whether  it  be  the  preaching  of  God's  word  or 
the  promoting  of  divine  worship.  In  all  this  she  clings  to 
the  traditions  of  the  past,  yet  without  overlooking  the  needs  of 
the  present.  She  ever  preaches  what  the  Apostles  preached, 
and  she  ever  worships  what  the  Apostles  worshiped ;  but  in  this 
preaching  and  worshiping  she  emphasizes  now  one  point  or 
feature  and  then  another,  as  best  suits  the  circumstances  of 
time  and  place.  Sometimes  the  initiative  in  this  matter  is 
taken  by  the  head  of  the  Church,  but  oftener  by  some  indi 
vidual  bishop  or  priest,  moved  thereto  not  rarely  by  members 
of  the  flock:  for  the  Spirit  breatheth  wheresoever  He  listeth. 
The  result  of  this  shows  itself  in  the  gradual  fixation  of  the 
doctrines  or  features  of  worship  thus  emphasized,  and  so  the 
work  of  development  is  promoted  in  God's  own  quiet  way. 
To  the  doctrines  thus  gradually  developed  belong  the  three 
placed  at  the  head  of  the  present  chapter. 

A  —  THE  VENERATION  OF  THE  SAINTS 
In  one  sense  the  practice  of  venerating  the  saints  of  God  is 

1  Cfr.  McGinnis,  The  Communion      berger,      Eschatologie ;      Duchesne, 
of  Saints;  Kirsch,  The  Doctrine  of      Christian  Worship, 
the    Communion    of    Saints;    Atz- 

449 


450  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

as  old  as  the  Church;  for  from  the  very  beginning  of  Chris 
tianity  religious  reverence  was  shown  to  the  martyrs  of  the 
faith,  and  prayers  were  offered  to  obtain  their  intercession  with 
God.  It  was  altogether  distinct  from  divine  worship  as  such, 
even  as  it  is  distinct  from  it  now,  both  in  object  and  purpose; 
but  it  was  truly  of  a  religious  nature  and  found  its  proper  place 
near  the  altar  of  sacrifice.  "  Christ,"  wrote  the  church  of 
Smyrna,  in  the  early  part  of  the  second  century,  "  we  adore 
as  the  Son  of  God,  but  the  martyrs  we  rightly  love  as  the 
disciples  and  imitators  of  the  Lord."  Their  bones  are  rever 
ently  gathered  up,  "  as  being  more  precious  than  gems,"  and 
deposited  "  in  a  decent  place,  where  the  faithful  may  come 
together  for  the  purpose  of  celebrating  the  anniversary  of  the 
martyr's  death,  both  in  memory  of  those  who  have  triumphed 
in  the  conflict  and  that  their  successors  may  be  ready  and 
prepared  to  bear  the  same  trials."  2 

This  contains  at  once  a  record  of  the  practice  then  in  vogue, 
an  explanation  of  the  veneration  paid  to  martyrs,  a  statement 
of  the  reasons  upon  which  it  is  based,  and  a  reference  to  the 
purpose  it  was  meant  to  subserve.  The  martyrs,  it  is  stated, 
are  not  worshiped  as  gods,  but  venerated  as  the  dear  friends 
of  God ;  and  this  is  right  and  just,  because  here  on  earth  they 
were  the  disciples  and  imitators  of  the  Lord;  nor  is  this  use 
less,  for  it  contributes  to  their  honor  and  helps  others  to  follow 
their  example. —  Here  we  have  a  complete  and  exact  exposi 
tion  of  the  theological  aspect  of  the  veneration  of  Saints. 

These  same  views  were  frequently  touched  upon  by  the 
writers  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  "  Whoever  honors 
God,"  says  Epiphanius,  "honors  the  saint;  whoever  despises 
the  saint,  despises  the  Lord  of  the  saints."  3  "  They  have 
great  power  with  God,"  Chrysostom  tells  his  hearers,  and 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus  adds :  "  Much  greater  than  when  they 
were  still  on  earth."  4  The  Latin  writers  were  entirely  of  the 
same  mind ;  hence  Jerome  states :  "  We  honor  the  relics  of 
the  martyrs  that  thereby  we  may  adore  Him  whose  martyrs 
they  are.  We  honor  the  servants,  so  that  their  honor  may 

2  Martyr.  Polyc.  17.  4  De  S.  Melitio,  Orat.  18,  21. 

3  Adv.  Haer.  18,  21. 


THE  VENERATION  OF  THE  SAINTS 


451 


redound  to  the  honor  of  the  Lord."  5  And  to  this  there  is  no 
exception  among  orthodox  theologians,  either  in  the  fourth 
or  any  subsequent  century. 

However  in  the  beginning  this  veneration  was  almost  ex 
clusively  paid  to  the  martyrs  of  the  faith.  Moreover  this 
cultus  remained  for  a  long  time  more  or  less  local,  each  com 
munity  honoring  its  own  martyred  heroes.  Gradually,  how 
ever,  a  commemoration  was  also  made  of  all  the  holy  martyrs 
in  general,  as  appears  from  a  homily  of  Maximus  of  Turin, 
which  was  written  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century.  But 
he  still  emphasizes  the  propriety  of  first  and  especially  honoring 
the  martyrs  belonging  to  his  own  particular  church;  for  he 
says :  "  As  we  must  celebrate  the  general  commemoration  of 
all  the  holy  martyrs,  so,  my  brethren,  ought  we  to  celebrate 
with  special  devotion  the  feasts  of  those  who  shed  their  blood 
in  our  own  locality.  For  while  all  the  saints,  wherever  they 
may  be,  assist  us  all,  yet  those  who  suffered  in  our  midst 
intercede  for  us  in  a  special  manner.  And  the  reason  is  that 
the  martyr  suffers  not  for  himself  alone,  but  also  for  his 
fellow  citizens.  By  his  sufferings  he  obtains  rest  for  himself 
and  salvation  for  them."  6  It  was  only  when  the  Teuton  na 
tions,  who  as  yet  had  no  martyrs  of  their  own,  were  converted 
to  the  faith,  that  the  restriction  of  festivals  to  local  saints 
was  gradually  removed. 

The  earliest  records  of  the  public  veneration  of  saints  who 
were  not  martyrs,  aside  from  the  Blessed  Virgin,  date  back 
to  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century.  About  that  time  a 
church  was  dedicated  in  Rome  to  Pope  Sylvester  and  Martin  of 
Tours.7  Thereafter  the  custom  spread  rapidly,  and  feasts 
were  instituted  of  virgins  and  confessors  as  well  as  of  mar 
tyrs.  The  principle  involved  is,  of  course,  the  same  in  both 
cases.  Any  one,  whether  a  martyr  or  not,  who  is  with  God 
in  heaven,  is  by  that  very  fact  deserving  of  veneration.  But 
whether  the  Church  will  think  it  expedient  to  accord  him  public 
veneration  is  another  matter.  This  rests  with  her.  It  is  true, 
in  olden  times  there  was  no  formal  process  of  canonization; 

5  Ep.  109,  i.  7  Cfr.  Kellner,  Heortology,  208. 

6  Horn.  81,  P.  L.  57,  427. 


452  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

the  veneration  of  deceased  holy  persons  usually  grew  up  spon 
taneously  among  the  faithful,  and  was  then  accepted  by  the 
bishop  of  the  diocese  or  by  a  local  synod:  but  this  does  not 
alter  the  case;  the  final  decision  always  rests  with  the  Church. 
However  she  never  issued  a  prohibition  which  stood  in  the 
way  of  paying  public  veneration  to  those  of  her  sainted  chil 
dren  who  were  not  martyrs;  but  she  accommodated  herself 
to  the  exigencies  of  the  times.  The  memories  of  the  terrible 
years  of  conflict  still  lingered  in  the  minds  of  the  faithful,  and 
when  in  consequence  they  restricted  their  veneration  to  the 
martyred  heroes  of  the  faith,  she  did  not  interfere.  But  when 
with  the  lapse  of  time  the  proper  moment  arrived,  she  had  no 
misgivings  about  according  the  honors  of  her  altars  to  con 
fessors  and  virgins  as  well  as  to  the  martyrs  of  old.  She  laid 
down  only  two  conditions:  that  the  sanctity  of  the  person  in 
question  be  beyond  suspicion,  and  that  the  example  of  his  or 
her  life  be  an  inspiration  for  good  to  the  faithful. 

B  —  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  PURGATORY 

The  Catholic  doctrine  of  purgatory  comprises  two  points: 
First,  that  there  is  a  place  of  purgation,  where  the  souls  of 
the  departed  that  are  still  stained  by  slight  sins,  or  at  least 
have  not  yet  completely  satisfied  the  justice  of  God,  are  sub 
jected  to  some  kind  of  purifying  process  until  they  are  worthy 
to  be  admitted  to  the  blessed  vision  of  God ;  secondly,  that  while 
detained  in  this  place  they  may  be  assisted  by  the  suffrages 
of  the  faithful  here  on  earth.  Under  both  aspects  the  doc 
trine  is  met  with  in  the  writings  of  the  earliest  times.  Thus 
Origen  knows  of  a  place  in  the  lower  regions  where  souls  are 
purified  by  a  baptism  of  fire ; 8  and  Tertullian  states  that  the 
prison-house  of  which  the  Gospel  speaks  is  a  subterranean 
place  in  which  souls  are  detained,  and  that  the  last  farthing, 
which  must  be  paid  before  deliverance  is  possible,  stands  for 
slight  faults  of  which  these  souls  must  be  cleansed  before  they 
are  fit  for  the  resurrection ; 9  whilst  Cyprian  and  others  speak 
of  the  Holy  Sacrifice  being  offered  for  the  dead  as  a  general 
custom. 

8  In  Luc.  Horn.  24.  9  De  Anima.  58. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  PURGATORY  453 

However  it  was  chiefly  during  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries 
that  this  doctrine  was  fully  developed.  Thus  St.  Basil  states 
quite  clearly,  that  souls  are  judged  immediately  after  death, 
"  so  that,  if  they  are  found  to  be  still  disfigured  by  the  wounds 
of  the  conflict,  or  to  have  retained  any  stains  or  vestiges  of 
sins,  their  reward  may  be  delayed  for  a  while;  and,  if  on  the 
other  hand,  they  are  found  to  be  without  wounds  or  stains, 
that  they  may,  unconquered  and  free,  rest  with  Christ."  10 
Gregory  of  Nyssa  uses  almost  the  same  terms,  and  then  an 
nounces  the  general  principle :  "  No  one  can  see  God  unless 
the  purgatorial  fire  has  cleansed  his  soul  from  all  stains."  n 
This  principle  was  admitted  by  all,  and  from  it,  in  view  of 
human  weakness,  they  necessarily  inferred  the  existence  of 
purgatory,  although  they  also  deduced  it  from  the  teaching  of 
Holy  Scripture. 

Belief  in  the  efficacy  of  suffrages  for  the  departed  was 
equally  firm  and  widespread.  A  commemoration  of  the  dead 
was  universally  made  during  the  Holy  Sacrifice,  as  :°s  thus 
stated  by  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem :  "  Afterwards  we  ma^  a 
commemoration  also  of  those  who  have  slept  in  the  Lord :  first 
of  the  Patriarchs,  Prophets,  Apostles,  and  martyrs,  so  that 
through  their  supplications  and  intercession  God  may  receive 
our  prayer ;  then  for  the  deceased  holy  fathers  and  bishops,  and 
for  all  in  general  who  have  departed  this  life,  believing  that 
this  is  of  the  greatest  help  for  those  souls  for  whom  prayer 
is  offered  whilst  the  holy  and  tremendous  Victim  lies  upon  the 
altar."  12  And  for  this  Ephrem,  the  Syrian,  also  pleads  in 
his  last  will :  "  On  the  thirtieth  day,  my  brethren,  make  a 
commemoration  of  me.  For  the  dead  are  helped  by  the  sacri 
fice  which  is  offered  by  the  living."  13  And  a  little  further  on : 
"If  the  men  of  Mathathias,  who  were  entrusted  with  the  offer 
ing  of  sacrifices,  could  expiate,  as  you  have  read,  by  their  obla 
tions  the  sins  of  the  fallen  soldiers,  how  much  more  are  the 
priests  of  God's  own  Son  able  to  expiate  by  their  Holy  Sacri 
fice  and  by  the  prayers  of  their  lips  the  sins  of  the  dead !  "  14 

10  In  Ps.  I,  Horn.  4.  13  Testam.  72. 

11  Orat.  De  Mortuis.  14  Ibid.  78. 

12  Catech.  Mystag.  5,  9,   10. 


454 


THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 


This  doctrine  the  fourth  century  writers  had  sometimes  to 
defend  against  the  followers  of  Aerius,  who  formed  an  ex 
treme  section  of  the  Arian  party.  These  sectaries  contended 
that  suffrages  for  the  dead  were  useless,  and  to  pray  for  them 
or  offer  the  Holy  Sacrifice  in  their  behalf  was  folly.  In 
answer  to  them  Epiphanius  writes :  "  Even  though  it  does 
not  blot  out  all  sins,  the  prayer  made  for  the  departed  is  profit 
able  to  them ;  for  while  we  are  in  this  world,  it  often  happens 
that  willingly  or  unwillingly  we  waver  in  choosing  what  is 
more  perfect."  15  Chrysostom  traces  the  custom  of  offering 
suffrages  for  the  dead  to  the  Apostles  themselves.  "  It  is  not 
in  vain,"  he  writes,  "that  the  Apostles  established  this  law, 
that  in  the  venerable  and  tremendous  Mysteries  a  commemora 
tion  should  be  made  of  those  who  have  departed  this  life.  For 
they  knew  that  thereby  great  gain  and  help  would  accrue  to 
these  souls.  Because  at  that  time,  when  the  whole  people  and 
the  sacerdotal  assembly  stand  praying  with  arms  extended,  and 
the  awe-inspiring  Victim  is  present,  how  should  we  not  placate 
God  as  we  pray  in  their  behalf?  "  16 

The  efficacy  of  suffrages  for  the  dead  is  also  taught  by  the 
Western  writers  of  this  period,  who  frequently  refer  to  the 
custom  of  praying  for  the  departed  in  the  liturgical  services. 
Besides  private  prayers  and  alms-giving,  to  which  each  one 
attends  as  devotion  to  his  loved  ones  may  prompt  him,  solemn 
rites  are  celebrated  on  the  seventh  and  fortieth  day  after  their 
demise.  Apostles  and  martyrs  are  invoked  in  their  behalf,  and 
whatever  is  thus  done  for  them  washes  away  their  sins  and 
hastens  their  final  happiness.17  However  these  writers  have 
but  few  references  to  purgatory  as  a  special  place  of  purifica 
tion.  This  was  possibly  owing  to  their  somewhat  confused 
notions  on  eschatology,  about  which  something  will  be  said 
in  the  following  section.  It  was  Augustine  who  fully  devel 
oped  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  in  the  Western  Church. 

He  touches  both  points:  the  existence  of  purgatory  and 
the  efficacy  of  our  prayers  for  the  departed.  "  Some,"  he 
writes,  "  suffer  temporal  punishment  in  this  life  only,  others 

15  Adv.  Haer.  75,  7.  17  Ambrose,    Serm.    20,    22 ;    De 

16  In  Ep.  ad  Phil.  3,  4.  Excessu  Frat.  I,  5,  29. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  PURGATORY  455 

after  death,  and  others  both  now  and  hereafter,  but  before 
that  most  severe  and  last  judgment.  But  not  all  of  those  who 
bear  temporal  punishment  after  death  are  condemned  to  the 
everlasting  pains  which  follow  that  judgment."  18  "  He  who 
does  not  till  his  field,  and  allows  it  to  be  overrun  with  thorns, 
receives  in  this  life  the  curse  of  the  earth  in  all  his  works,  and 
hereafter  he  shall  be  condemned  either  to  the  fire  of  purgation 
or  to  eternal  punishment."  19 

In  answer  to  those  who  doubt  whether  there  is  fire  in  purga 
tory,  he  says:  "It  is  not  incredible  that  even  after  this  life 
there  should  be  something  of  the  kind,  but  whether  there  really 
is  remains  a  matter  of  dispute.  And  when  one  examines  into 
the  question,  it  may  either  be  found  to  be  so  or  continue  to 
be  doubtful,  namely,  whether  some  of  the  faithful  departed 
are  detained  in  a  certain  purgatorial  fire,  their  salvation  being 
thereby  delayed  in  proportion  as  they  have  more  or  less  loved 
the  perishable  things  of  this  world." 20  Hence  though  the 
existence  of  purgatory  admits  of  no  doubt,  the  nature  of  the 
sufferings  which  souls  must  there  endure  is  to  some  extent  a 
matter  of  speculation. 

On  the  second  point,  the  efficacy  of  prayers  for  the  dead, 
he  is  very  definite.  "  For  some  of  the  departed,"  he  says, 
"  the  prayers  either  of  the  Church  herself  or  of  the  pious  faith 
ful  are  of  avail ;  but  for  those  only  who  have  been  regenerated 
in  Christ,  and  whose  life  here  on  earth  was  neither  so  bad  as 
to  make  them  unworthy  of  His  mercy,  nor  so  good  as  to  have 
no  need  of  it."21  And  again:  "Neither  is  it  to  be  denied 
that  the  souls  of  the  departed  are  relieved  by  the  piety  of  their 
living  relatives,  when  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mediator  is  offered 
for  them,  or  alms  are  given  in  the  church."  22  These  souls,  he 
remarks  in  another  place,  are  deserving  of  being  helped  after 
death,  not  because  of  any  present  merit,  since  they  no  longer 
can  merit  for  themselves  nor  can  others  merit  for  them ;  but 
because  they  have  so  acted  during  life  as  to  be  worthy  of  mercy 
after  death.23 

18  De  Civ.  Dei,  21,  13 ;  cfr.  Enar.  21  De  Civ.  Dei,  21,  24,  2. 
in  Ps.  37,  3.  22  Enchir.  no. 

19  Cont.  Manich.  2,  20,  30.  23  Serai.  172,  2. 

20  Enchir.  69. 


456  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

Beyond  this,  Catholic  teaching  on  purgatory  has  hardly  made 
any  advance,  even  till  the  present  day.  It  is  true,  we  make 
much  of  the  application  of  indulgences  to  the  poor  souls,  but 
in  their  present  form  indulgences  were  unknown  in  the  Patris 
tic  age.  The  principles  underlying  the  doctrine  were  indeed 
understood  and  admitted  by  the  Fathers,  but  the  theory  of 
indulgences  was  worked  out  later. 

These  views  of  Augustine  soon  spread  and  were  adopted 
throughout  the  West.  Some  fifty  years  later  Caesarius  of 
Aries  speaks  in  terms  that  are  fully  as  definite.  Referring  to 
the  slighter  sins,  such  as  intemperance  in  eating  and  drinking, 
talking  too  much  or  too  little,  he  says :  "  We  do  not  believe 
that  by  these  sins  the  soul  is  killed ;  but  she  is  disfigured  thereby 
as  with  so  many  ulcers  and  Ugly  scars,  which  make  her  un 
worthy  to  receive  the  embraces  of  her  Heavenly  Spouse."  24 
And  again:  "  But  if  we  do  not  give  thanks  to  God  in  our 
tribulations,  nor  redeem  our  sins*by  good  works,  we  shall  be 
detained  in  that  purgatorial  fire  until  the  above  mentioned 
slight  sins  have  been  consumed,  as  so  much  wood,  or  hay,  or 
stubble."  25 

The  same  clear  statements  are  found  in  the  writings  of 
Gregory  I.  "  In  the  same  condition  as  one  leaves  this  world," 
he  says,  "  one  will  also  be  found  in  the  judgment.  However 
it  is  a  matter  of  belief  that  for  the  cleansing  from  light  faults 
before  the  judgment  there  exists  a  purgatorial  fire;  for  this 
follows  from  the  words  of  the  Eternal  Truth,  that  he  who 
uttereth  a  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit  shall  not  be 
forgiven,  either  in  this  world  or  in  the  next."  26 

In  the  East,  however,  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  received 
little  attention  from  the  later  writers.  Even  John  Damascene, 
who  summed  up  Greek  theology,  barely  touches  the  subject. 
Moreover  the  opinion  seems  to  have  been  fairly  general  among 
Eastern  theologians  of  this  period  that  by  the  purgatorial  fire, 
of  which  some  of  the  earlier  Greek  Fathers  spoke,  must  be 
understood  mental  sufferings,  such  as  remorse,  shame,  and  sad 
ness.  This  view  was  eventually  adopted  by  the  Greek  Church. 

2*  Serm.  104,  3.  26  Dial.  4,  39- 

25  Ibid.  4. 


ESCHATOLOGY  457 

C  —  ESCHATOLOGICAL   VlEWS 

Death,  judgment,  heaven,  and  hell,  are  the  four  topics  usu 
ally  included  in  the  general  term  of  eschatology.  Of  death 
nothing  need  be  said  here,  as  the  doctrine  that  it  is  decreed  for 
all  once  to  die  admits  practically  of  no  development. 26a  Judg 
ment,  as  treated  in  this  connection,  includes  both  the  judgment 
that  is  to  follow  immediately  after  death,  and  the  one  that  is 
to  take  place  at  the  end  of  time.  Hence  these  four  points,  the 
particular  judgment,  the  general  judgment,  heaven,  and  hell, 
form  the  subject  matter  of  this  section. 

On  the  particular  judgment  both  the  Eastern  and  Western 
writers  were  fairly  well  agreed,  at  least  in  so  far  as  they 
admitted  a  determination  of  each  one's  lot  immediately  after 
death.  This  was  necessarily  implied  in  their  views  on  purga 
tory,  as  recorded  in  the  preceding  section.  Sometimes,  more 
over,  they  stated  this  explicitly.  Thus  St.  Chrysostom  writes : 
"  I  think  that  the  valiant  athletes  of  God,  who  during  life  con 
tended  bravely  with  the  invisible  enemies,  .  .  .  shall  at  the 
end  of  their  days  be  examined  by  the  Prince  of  the  ages."  27 
He  refers  here  only  to  the  just  because  he  is  speaking  of 
purgatory.  St.  Hilary  is  very  explicit.  If  we  have  led  a 
bad  life,  hell  will  be  our  portion.  And  this  he  proves  from 
the  parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus.  "  Our  witnesses,"  he  says, 
"  are  Dives  and  Lazarus,  of  whom  the  Gospel  speaks.  One 
of  them  was  carried  by  angels  into  the  abode  of  the  blessed, 
in  Abraham's  bosom ;  whilst  the  other  was  immediately  dragged 
down  into  the  place  of  punishment.  And  so  immediately  did 
the  punishment  follow,  that  it  was  inflicted  while  his  brothers 
were  still  among  the  living.  There  was  no  interval  of  delay. 
For  the  day  of  judgment  marks  the  beginning  either  of  eternal 
blessedness  or  eternal  pain."  28 

Nor  was  there  any  disagreement  about  the  general  judg- 

28a  It  is  indeed  still  a  matter  of  to  death ;  but  the  writings  of  the 

dispute  among  theologians,  whether  Fathers  contain  little  that  might  be 

those  living  immediately  before  the  used    in    elucidation    of   this    ques- 

second  advent  of  Christ  shall  actu-  tion. 

ally  die,  or  merely  pass  through  trib-          27  In  Ep.  ad  Cor.  Horn.  42,  3-7. 
ulations  in  some  measure  equivalent          28  Tract,  super  Ps.  2,  49. 


458  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

ment,  in  so  far  as  a  second  or  last  judgment  comes  in  question. 
At  the  end  of  time  Christ  will  come  to  judge  the  living  and 
the  dead.  This  is  Scriptural  data,  and  was  from  the  very 
first  professed  by  every  believing  Christian.  But  as  to  the 
further  question  of  who  shall  be  judged  on  the  last  day,  all 
were  apparently  not  of  the  same  mind;  although  they  should 
have  been  if  they  followed  the  Symbol  and  accepted  the  obvious 
meaning  of  the  Sacred  Writings.  Thus  Aphraates,  the  Syrian, 
states  very  plainly:  "As  the  just,  who  have  been  perfected 
in  good  works,  do  not  come  to  the  judgment  to  be  judged,  so 
neither  are  the  wicked,  whose  sins  have  been  multiplied  and  the 
measure  of  whose  iniquity  is  overflowing,  compelled  to  come 
to  the  judgment;  but  as  soon  as  they  have  risen  from  the 
dead,  they  return  to  hell."  29  The  same  opinion  found  also 
advocates  in  the  West,  as,  for  instance,  Hilary  and  Zeno. 
According  to  them,  neither  the  just  nor  infidels  and  profligates 
will  have  to  undergo  the  judgment;  but  only  those  careless  and 
lukewarm  Christians  who  though  believing  did  not  live  up 
to  their  faith.30  However  in  regard  to  this  peculiar  view  it 
must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  term  judgment,  at  least  as 
used  in  the  West,  may  well  refer  to  the  passing  of  a  sentence 
in  a  case  that  is  not  already  evident,  therefore  implying  a 
previous  examination  of  the  accused  person.  Hence  even 
these  authors  would  admit  that  in  a  wider  sense  of  the  term 
the  last  judgment  will  be  general. 

The  resurrection  of  the  dead,  which  is  to  precede  the  last 
judgment,  is  admitted  by  all;  but  this,  again,  only  in  so  far 
as  the  mere  fact  of  the  resurrection  is  concerned.  When 
there  is  question  of  the  manner,  or  of  what  the  resurrection 
really  implies,  opinions  differ.  It  must,  however,  be  noted 
that  the  vast  majority  take  the  term  in  its  proper  sense,  namely, 
that  each  one  shall  arise  in  his  own  body  which  he  had  during 
life.  "  The  resurrection,"  says  Epiphanius,  "  is  not  affirmed 
of  that  which  never  fell,  but  of  that  which  fell  and  rises  again. 
.  .  .  For  not  that  which  does  not  die,  but  that  which  dies  is 
said  to  fall.  It  is  the  flesh  that  dies ;  the  soul  is  immortal."  31 

29  Demonstr.  22,  17.  Tract.  I,  21. 

^  Hilary,  In  Ps.  i,  15-18 ;  Zeno,          31  Adv.  Haer.  64,  35. 


ESCHATOLOGY  459 

This  is  strongly  defended  by  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  and  by 
Chrysostom.  The  former  says :  "  This  very  body  shall  rise 
from  the  dead,  not  weak  as  it  is  now ;  yet  this  same  body  itself 
shall  rise  again.  .  .  .  Therefore  this  body  itself  shall  rise,  but 
it  shall  not  remain  as  it  is;  yet  it  shall  remain  forever."32 
How  this  may  come  to  pass  is  thus  indicated  by  Gregory  of 
Nyssa :  "  Just  as  the  seed,  which  in  the  beginning  is  without 
form,  is  by  the  ineffable  skill  of  God  fashioned  into  a  being 
of  its  own  kind,  and  then  grows  up  into  bodily  substances, 
so  it  is  not  at  all  unreasonable,  but  altogether  in  accord  with 
the  nature  of  matter,  that  the  material  part  of  man  which  is 
in  the  grave,  and  which  formerly  had  a  definite  form,  should 
be  brought  back  to  its  erstwhile  condition,  and  that  thus  man 
should  again  become  dust,  whence  in  the  beginning  he  had 
his  origin."  33 

The  same  view  was  taken  by  the  majority  of  the  Western 
writers.  Thus  Hilary,  speaking  of  the  transformation  of  our 
bodies  in  the  resurrection,  as  indicated  by  St.  Paul,  says: 
"  That  which  was  broken  God  will  repair ;  not  by  using  any 
other  matter,  but  the  very  same  whence  men  had  their  origin, 
imparting  to  it  a  beauty  that  is  in  accord  with  His  own  good 
pleasure;  so  that  the  resurrection  of  our  corruptible  bodies  in 
incorruption  does  not  mean  a  destruction  of  their  nature,  but 
a  change  of  their  condition."  34  Ambrose  is  just  as  definite: 
"  For  this,"  he  writes,  "  is  the  resurrection,  as  the  word  itself 
indicates,  that  the  same  which  fell  rises  again ;  the  same  which 
died  is  brought  to  life."  35 

However  along  with  this  common  teaching  there  was  astir  a 
tendency  to  revive  the  peculiar  views  of  Origen,  according  to 
which  the  resurrection  consists  in  the  development  of  a  repro 
ductive  germ,  contained  in  each  body  and  surviving  the  cor 
ruption  of  death.  The  result  of  this  development  will  indeed 
be  a  real  body,  but  it  has  nothing  in  common  with  that  which 
each  one  had  during  life,  except  the  reproductive  germ.  Epi- 
phanius  argued  strongly  against  this  view,  which  unsettled  the 
faith  of  the  simple;  and  two  centuries  later  it  was  thought 

32  Catech.  17,  18,  19.  84  Tract,   super  Ps.  2,  41. 

33  Orat.  3.  85  De  Exitu  Frat.  2,  87. 


460  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

necessary  to  issue  a  formal  condemnation  of  Origen's  teaching 
on  this  point. 

After  the  resurrection  and  final  judgment  the  just  will  enter 
with  Christ  into  eternal  life,  and  the  wicked  shall  be  cast  into 
hell.  On  the  first  point  there  is  practically  no  disagreement. 
It  is  true,  Chrysostom  and  a  few  other  theologians  of  the 
Antiochene  school  are  sometimes  adduced  as  denying  the  intu 
itive  vision  of  God's  essence ; 36  but  what  they  had  in  mind 
was  most  likely  the  comprehensive  knowledge  of  God,  as  the 
texts  in  question  seem  to  refer  to  Eunomius,  who  contended 
that  God  is  as  perfectly  known  by  us  as  He  is  known  by  Him 
self.  The  common  view  on  the  object  of  Beatitude  is  thus 
expressed  by  Gregory  of  Nazianzus :  "  The  bliss  of  heaven 
consists  primarily  in  the  vision  of  the  Holy  and  Royal  Triad, 
which  illumines  us  with  a  great  splendor  and  wholly  communi 
cates  itself  to  the  spirit."  37  The  bodies  of  the  blessed  shall 
also  be  glorified,  and  shine  with  a  great  light.38 

On  the  second  point,  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  in  hell, 
many  different  views  appear  to  have  been  entertained  during 
the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century,  both  by  theological  writers 
and  the  common  people.  In  the  first  place,  Ambrosiaster 
among  the  Latins  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa  among  the  Greeks 
apparently  held  that  there  would  be  a  universal  apokatastasis, 
a  final  restoration  of  all  rational  creatures  to  the  friendship  of 
God.39  In  regard  to  Gregory  it  is  indeed  frequently  pointed 
out  by  dogmatic  theologians  that  he  has  passages  in  which  he 
explicitly  defends  the  eternity  of  hell,  but  unfortunately  he 
himself  interprets  that  "  eternity "  as  "  long  periods  of 
time/'  40 

In  the  next  place,  the  view  seems  to  have  been  rather  com 
mon,  at  least  in  the  West,  that  the  punishment  of  hell  would 
be  everlasting  only  for  the  most  wicked  of  sinners  —  for  infi 
dels,  apostates,  and  the  evil  spirits.  Even  Jerome  and  Am 
brose  are  said  to  have  been  inclined  towards  this  view,41 

3«  Cfr.   Tixeront,  H.  D.   II,   198,  26,  35- 

199.  40  Ibid.  26 ;  De  An.  et  Resurr. ;  P. 

37  Orat.  15.  G.  46,  72,  152,  157. 

88  Cyr.  Hier.  Catech.  18,  18.  41  Cfr.  Tixeront.  op.  cit.  339~347- 
39  In  Ephes.  3,  10;  Orat.  Catech. 


ESCHATOLOGY  461 

although  there  are  not  wanting  in  their  works  passages  from 
which  one  might  well  infer  the  contrary.  St.  Augustine,  who 
had  no  patience  with  these  lax  opinions,  has  put  on  record  the 
different  views  that  were  quite  generally  held  at  the  beginning 
of  the  fifth  century.  Some,  he  says,  maintain  that  all  bap 
tized  persons  will  be  saved;  others  that  all  those  are  sure  of 
salvation  who  besides  baptism  have  also  received  the  Blessed 
Eucharist;  others  promise  salvation  to  all  Catholics  without 
exception ;  others  hold  that  there  will  be  a  universal  restoration, 
so  that  in  the  end  all  will  be  admitted  to  the  everlasting  joys 
of  heaven.42 

None  of  these  strange  views,  however,  were  based  on  tra 
dition.  In  fact,  up  to  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  the 
common  teaching  was  rather  inclined  towards  rigorism  in  the 
matter  of  salvation;  and  practically  no  one  thought  that  out 
of  hell  there  was  any  redemption.  It  was  the  translation  of 
Origen's  De  Principiis  by  Rufinus  that  caused  all  this  confusion 
in  Latin  countries.  No  doubt,  the  view  was  very  acceptable 
to  persons  of  lax  moral  principles,  and  so  from  the  learned 
world  it  readily  spread  among  the  common  people. 

But  even  at  this  time  the  weight  of  authority  was  entirely 
on  the  side  of  tradition.  In  the  East,  men  like  Basil,  Cyril 
of  Jerusalem,  Chrysostom,  Didymus,  and  Epiphanius,  were 
quite  positive  and  outspoken  about  the  eternity  of  hell.  And 
the  same  is  true  of  Hilary,  Zeno,  and  Augustine  in  the  West. 
Nor  did  they  reserve  the  eternal  punishment  of  hell  for  only 
"  the  most  wicked  of  sinners  " ;  they  were  fully  convinced  that 
it  would  overtake  every  one  who  did  not  depart  this  life  in 
the  friendship  of  God. 

St.  Augustine  undertook  the  task  of  formally  proving  the 
eternity  of  hell,  both  from  Holy  Scripture  and  from  the  usage 
of  the  Church  of  not  praying  for  the  deliverance  of  the  lost 
souls.  Referring  to  Matthew,  25,  46,  he  asks :  "  What  sense 
is  there  in  thinking  that  the  eternal  punishment  of  hell  means 
only  a  long  period  of  time,  and  at  the  same  time  asserting  that 
eternal  life  is  without  end?  For  in  one  and  the  same  place, 

42  De  Civ.  Dei,  26,  17-22;  Enchir.  67,  112;  De  Fide  et  Opere,  I,  22. 


462  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

in  one  and  the  same  sentence,  taking  the  two  together,  Christ 
said :  '  Thus  these  shall  go  into  eternal  punishment,  but  the 
just  into  life  eternal.'  If  both  are  eternal,  surely  both  must 
be  understood  to  signify  either  a  long  duration  of  time  which 
shall  some  day  come  to  an  end,  or  a  duration  without  end. 
Both  stand  in  the  same  relation :  on  the  one  hand  eternal  pun 
ishment,  on  the  other  life  eternal.  But  to  say  in  this  one  and 
the  same  sense:  Eternal  life  will  be  without  end,  eternal  pun 
ishment  will  have  an  end,  is  utterly  absurd."  43 

The  sufferings  of  the  damned  are  of  two  kinds :  the  loss  of 
God  and  positive  pains.  "  It  is  an  everlasting  death,"  he 
argues,  "  when  the  soul  can  neither  live,  because  she  does  not 
possess  God;  nor  be  without  pain,  because  she  cannot  die. 
The  first  death  drags  the  unwilling  soul  out  of  the  body,  the 
second  death  keeps  the  unwilling  soul  in  the  body."  44  These 
sufferings,  however,  will  not  be  the  same  for  all :  "  It  must 
not  be  denied  that  even  the  torture  of  the  eternal  fire  will  be 
in  proportion  to  the  guilt  of  each,  lighter  for  some  and  more 
severe  for  others ;  either  because  the  intensity  varies  according 
to  the  punishment  decreed  for  each  one,  or  if  the  intensity 
remains  the  same,  it  does  not  inflict  upon  all  the  same  pain."  45 
As  to  the  opinion  of  some,  which  was  also  held  by  Chrysostom, 
that  the  lost  may  at  times  experience  a  mitigation  of  their 
sufferings,  he  says  that  he  neither  approves  nor  rejects  it.46 

He  also  counteracted  the  view  that  all  Christians,  at  least, 
can  be  practically  certain  of  their  final  salvation,  even  if  they 
lead  bad  lives.  Neither  baptism,  nor  the  Eucharist,  nor  any 
thing  else  will  avail  them  aught,  unless  their  lives  be  such  as 
God  demands  of  His  faithful  servants.  For  some  time  he 
seems  to  have  been  inclined  to  look  for  a  Millennium  before 
the  end  of  the  world,  but  in  his  later  years  he  rejected  Millen- 
narianism  altogether.  He  then  interpreted  the  thousand  years, 
spoken  of  by  St.  John  in  the  Apocalypse,  as  the  duration  of 
the  Church  here  on  earth,  although  he  was  not  without  mis 
givings  about  the  correctness  of  this  interpretation.  On  the 
resurrection,  the  two  judgments,  and  the  joys  of  heaven,  he 

43  De  Civ.  Dei,  21,  23.  45  Ibid.  21,  16. 

44  Ibid.  21,  3,  I.  46Enchir.  112. 


ESCHATOLOGY  463 

held  practically  the  same  as  we  do  to-day.  The  identical  body 
which  was  dissolved  in  death  shall  rise  again;  it  shall  be  spir 
itualized,  as  is  taught  by  St.  Paul,  but  it  will  always  remain  a 
material  body.  The  final  judgment  lasts  only  an  instant,  and 
thereafter  eternal  life  or  everlasting  pain,  according  to  each 
one's  deserts. 

These  clear  expositions  stemmed  the  tide  of  Origenistic 
speculations  in  the  West,  and  during  the  remainder  of  the 
Patristic  age  they  were  made  the  basis  of  sermons  and  ascetical 
instructions.  Some  details  were  still  further  developed,  but 
on  the  whole  eschatology  remained  where  Augustine  had  left 
it.  And  as  he  left  it,  so  do  we  find  it  to-day ;  except  that  some 
points  have  been  defined  which  he  defended  simply  as  contained 
in  tradition  and  Holy  Scripture. 

A  word  may  here  be  added  about  the  doctrine  of  the  Com 
munion  of  Saints.  The  term  found  its  way  into  the  Symbol 
only  in  later  days,  but  the  truth  for  which  it  stands  was  well 
understood  and  firmly  believed  in  the  earliest  times.  It  is 
necessarily  implied  in  the  veneration  of  the  blessed  in  heaven 
and  the  suffrages  for  the  poor  souls  in  purgatory.  For  it  is 
only  because  the  faithful,  no  matter  where  they  are,  constitute 
one  body  of  which  Christ  is  the  head,  that  they  can  pray  for 
and  assist  one  another.  This  idea  was  frequently  brought  out 
by  the  writers  of  the  early  centuries.  Thus  Augustine  says : 
"  Neither  are  the  souls  of  the  faithful  departed  separated 
from  the  Church,  which  is  even  now  the  kingdom  of  Christ."  4T 
"  You  know  and  you  acknowledge  and  you  understand  that  our 
Head  is  Christ;  we  are  the  body  of  that  Head.  We  alone? 
And  not  rather  also  those  who  have  gone  before  us?  All  the 
just,  even  from  the  beginning  of  time,  have  Christ  as  their 
Head."  48 

47  De  Civ.  Dei,  20,  g.  48  Enar.  in  Ps.  36 ;  Sen  3,  4. 


CHAPTER  XXXI 

SOME  SUPPLEMENTARY   REMARKS  ON   SUBJECTS   DEALT 
WITH  IN  THE  PRECEDING  CHAPTERS  * 

It  must  have  been  noticed  by  the  reader  that,  with  the  sole 
exception  of  Christology,  the  development  of  doctrine  came 
practically  to  a  standstill  after  the  first  quarter  of  the  fifth 
century.  This  is  only  partly  accounted  for  by  the  far-reaching 
results  achieved  by  St.  Augustine.  He  left  many  a  point  of 
doctrine  still  capable  of  further  development,  and  under  normal 
conditions  his  patient  and  successful  labors  should  have  acted 
as  a  powerful  incentive  in  the  case  of  his  successors  to  work 
along  similar  lines.  But  unfortunately,  during  the  three  cen 
turies  that  followed  his  death,  conditions  were  not  normal. 
The  East  was  disrupted  by  protracted  and  violent  disputes  on 
account  of  the  Nestorian,  Eutychian,  and  Monothelite  heresies, 
which  made  the  quiet  study  of  other  doctrines  almost  impos 
sible.  The  West,  on  the  other  hand,  was  during  this  same 
period  of  time  constantly  harassed  by  the  devastating  incursion 
of  barbarian  tribes  from  the  North,  so  that  it  was  even  a  matter 
of  the  greatest  difficulty  to  preserve  what  had  been  accom 
plished  by  the  great  men  of  the  past.  The  Church  of  Africa, 
which  had  figured  so  largely  in  the  promotion  of  doctrinal 
development,  was  almost  ruined  by  the  fierce  persecutions  of 
the  Arian  Vandals,  whilst  that  of  Italy,  Spain,  and  Gaul  barely 
escaped  a  similar  fate  at  the  hands  of  the  Ostrogoths,  the  Visi 
goths,  and  the  Franks.  Religion  and  learning  found  a  com 
paratively  safe  retreat  only  within  the  walls  of  monasteries, 
which  since  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  had  begun  to 
cover  Southern  Europe.  It  was  a  time  when  the  sword  sup 
planted  the  pen,  and  the  Church  had  to  begin  anew  her  work 
of  evangelizing  the  Gentiles.  Under  these  conditions  there 

1  Cfr.  Tixeront,  H.  D.  Ill,  185-265,  302-420. 
464 


GENERAL  THEOLOGY  465 

was  little   opportunity   of   developing  the   Gospel   message. 

However  these  times  were  not  altogether  sterile.  Men  like 
Fulgentius,  Ferrandus,  Cassiodorus,  Caesarius,  Ildephonsus,  Isi 
dore,  and  Venerable  Bede,  carefully  preserved  and  even  some 
what  expanded  the  precious  heirloom  of  the  past  in  the  West 
ern  Church;  whilst  in  the  East,  Cyril,  Theodoret,  Maximus, 
Nilus,  Isidore  of  Pelusium,  and  others,  found  time  to  set 
down  their  views  on  points  of  doctrine  not  directly  connected 
with  the  Christological  controversy.  And  fortunately,  too, 
during  these  times  of  stress  and  strain  the  Church  was  blessed 
with  a  succession  of  great  Popes,  Celestine,  Leo,  Martin, 
Agatho,  and  Gregory,  who  wielded  the  scepter  of  their  Apos 
tolic  authority  with  no  uncertain  hand,  and  at  the  same  time 
were  an  inspiration  to  others  in  the  common  duty  of  defending 
and  explaining  the  faith.  Hence  some  supplementary  remarks 
must  here  be  made  in  reference  to  subjects  that  have  been  more 
carefully  treated  in  connection  with  the  work  of  the  fourth  cen 
tury  writers.  This  will  give  us  a  better  perspective  of  the  re 
sults  achieved. 

These  remarks,  however,  must  necessarily  be  very  brief, 
and  so  there  is  no  need  of  dividing  the  chapter  into  sections ; 
still  for  clearness'  sake  we  will  set  down  a  number  of  points, 
indicating  under  each  what  appears  to  be  of  greater  impor 
tance. 

i°.  Anthropology. —  On  this  subject  there  was  already  some 
difference  of  views  among  the  fourth-century  writers,  as  was 
indicated  in  a  previous  chapter.  All  were  indeed  agreed  that 
man  was  created  by  God,  and,  excepting  Didymus  and  Vic- 
torinus,  also  that  there  is  only  one  soul  in  man;  but  on  the 
further  question,  whether  individual  souls  are  produced  by  a 
creative  act  of  God  or  come  ex  traduce  seminis,  opinions  dif 
fered.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  Hilary,  Ambrose,  and  Jerome, 
taught  Creationism  very  definitely;  whilst  Didymus,  Epiphan- 
ius,  and  Augustine,  did  not  know  what  to  think.  During 
the  following  centuries  Eastern  writers  generally  held  that 
each  individual  soul  is  created  by  God  at  the  moment  of  its 
union  with  the  body,  but  among  the  Latins  there  was  con 
siderable  difference  of  opinion.  Thus  Cassiodorus,  Genna- 


466  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

dius,  Cassian,  and  the  Semi-Pelagians  generally,  were  Crea 
tionists;  while  Fulgentius,  Gregory,  Ildephonsus,  declared  the 
soul's  origin  to  be  unknown,  but  favored  Traducianism.  Cas- 
siodorus  thus  defines  the  soul :  "  Anima  hominis  est  a  Deo 
creata,  spiritalis,  propriaque  substantia,  sui  corporis  vivifica- 
trix,  rationalis  quidem  et  immortalis,  sed  in  bonum  malumque 
convertibilis."  2  Practically  the  same  definition  is  given  by 
Isidore  of  Seville,  except  that  he  substitutes  for  "  a  Deo  cre 
ata,"  "  habens  ignotam  originem."  The  view  of  Faustus  and 
Gennadius,  that  the  soul  is  corporeal,  because  quantitatively 
localized,  was  immediately  rejected  by  all. 

2°.  Grace. —  In  the  West  the  decisions  of  Orange  met  with 
a  general  acceptance.  All  subsequent  writers  admit  the  neces 
sity  of  grace,  both  for  the  beginning  and  perfecting  of  salutary 
actions;  but  at  the  same  time  they  insist  also  on  free  human 
cooperation.  "  The  supernal  goodness,"  writes  Gregory, 
"  first  acts  in  us  without  us,  so  that,  when  our  own  free  will 
follows  the  impulse,  He  may  accomplish  together  with  us  the 
good  which  we  desire ;  which  good,  nevertheless,  on  account  of 
the  grace  imparted,  He  so  rewards  in  the  last  judgment  as  if 
it  had  been  produced  by  us  alone."  3  On  predestination,  the 
fate  of  unbaptized  children,  and  the  necessity  of  good  works 
for  salvation,  the  views  of  Augustine  were  commonly  followed. 
Thus  Isidore  uses  strictly  Augustinian  terms  when  he  writes : 
"  Grace  is  not  conferred  on  account  of  any  previous  merits, 
but  solely  in  consequence  of  the  divine  will.  Nor  is  any  one 
saved  or  lost,  chosen  or  rejected,  except  in  accordance  with 
God's  decree  of  predestination,  who  is  just  in  reference  to 
the  reprobate  and  merciful  in  regard  to  the  elect."  4  The 
number  of  the  elect  was  generally  looked  upon  as  small. 

The  Eastern  writers  were  little  influenced  by  the  discussions 
on  the  subject  of  grace  that  were  finally  terminated  by  the 
synod  of  Orange.  They  simply  continued  the  teaching  of 
their  great  fourth-century  Fathers.  As  a  general  rule,  they 
strongly  emphasized  the  power  of  unaided  nature  to  practice 
natural  virtues,  although  they  were  at  the  same  time  careful 

2  De  Anima,  2.  *  Differ.  2,  19. 

8  Moral.  16,  30. 


GENERAL  THEOLOGY  467 

to  note  that  salvation  is  impossible  without  the  grace  of  God. 
Their  position  is  perhaps  best  indicated  by  St.  Cyril,  when  he 
writes :  "  There  is  one  faith  that  depends  on  us,  and  another 
that  is  the  gift  of  God.  It  belongs  to  us  to  begin  the  good 
work,  to  place  all  our  trust  and  faith  in  God ;  and  it  belongs  to 
the  grace  of  God  to  give  us  perseverance  in  good  and  strength 
to  accomplish."5  Or  as  St.  Nilus  words  it:  "Although 
without  God's  help  we  can  accomplish  nothing,  yet  it  is  our 
duty  to  make  a  good  choice  and  to  strive  after  good,  whilst 
it  is  the  part  of  God  to  give  our  desires  their  realization."  6 
They  do  not  ascribe  the  bestowal  of  grace  or  the  attainment  of 
salvation  to  merely  natural  merit  in  any  sense,  yet  they  place 
a  much  stronger  emphasis  on  the  necessity  of  a  person's  good 
disposition  antecedent  to  the  divine  help  than  do  their  Latin 
contemporaries.  Still  this  does  not  prevent  them  from  saying 
with  Cyril :  "  It  is  not  in  the  power  of  those  who  wish  to 
live  holily  to  do  so  in  effect,  unless  they  be  called."  7 

3°.  Original  Sin. —  The  respective  position  of  the  Eastern 
and  Western  writers  during  this  period  with  regard  to  original 
sin  was  practically  the  same  as  that  in  reference  to  grace.  The 
West  was  strongly  influenced  by  the  condemnation  of  Pelagian- 
ism,  and  readily  fell  in  with  the  views  of  Augustine;  whilst 
the  East  seemed  little  aware  of  the  fact  that  an  authoritative 
decision  had  been  given  in  the  matter.  Not  that  they  were  in 
any  way  infected  with  the  Pelagian  heresy,  but  they  hardly 
treated  the  subject  except  in  a  casual  way,  as  had  been  done  by 
their  Fathers  of  the  fourth  century.  Some  of  them,  like  Cyril 
of  Alexandria,  Abbot  Maximus,  and  Proclus  of  Constantinople, 
state  quite  plainly  that  "  the  heart  of  all  men  has  been  defiled 
by  transgression  in  Adam,"  that  "  through  Adam  we  have  all 
subscribed  to  sin,"  that  "  Christ  alone  is  free  from  the  inherited 
stain  " ;  yet  others,  like  Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  and  Isidore  of 
Pelusium,  without  actually  denying  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin,  dwell  almost  exclusively  on  the  physical  evils  that  have 
come  to  us  through  the  fall  of  our  first  parents.  Hence  al 
though  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  in  its  letter  to  Pope  Celestine, 

5  In  Luc.  17,  5.  7  In  Luc.  13,  23. 

6Ep.  4,  IS- 


468  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

subscribed  to  the  sentence  of  Zozimus  against  the  Pelagians, 
it  appears  that  the  Eastern  writers  in  general  failed  to  appre 
ciate  the  position  taken  by  the  West. 

4°.  Soteriology. —  The  three  different  theories  on  the  sub 
ject  of  redemption,  which,  as  was  stated  in  a  previous  chapter, 
were  current  during  the  fourth  century,  continued  to  be  held 
by  the  writers  of  this  period;  with  the  difference,  however, 
that  a  decided  preference  was  given  to  the  Realistic  or  Sub 
stitution  Theory.  The  idea  that  a  ransom  had  been  paid  to 
Satan  was  rejected  by  all,  though  preachers  still  emphasized 
the  fact  that,  by  his  unjust  proceedings  against  Christ,  Satan 
had  lost  his  power  over  the  fallen  race.  Cyril  in  the  East  and 
Leo  in  the  West  strongly  favored  the  Mystical  Theory,  con 
ceiving  it  as  more  or  less  necessary  that  the  corruption  of  fallen 
nature  should  have  been  healed  by  its  physical  contact  with 
the  Godhead  in  Christ.  However  along  with  this,  they  also 
endorsed  the  more  common  view,  that  "  if  Christ  had  not 
died  for  us,  we  should  not  have  been  saved  " ;  or  as  Leo  ex 
pressed  it :  "  The  passion  of  Christ  contains  the  mystery  of 
our  salvation."  The  Incarnation  as  such  was  not  sufficient 
for  our  redemption.  St.  Cyril  develops  this  in  detail,  and 
his  view  continues  to  be  that  of  the  Greek  Church.  These 
writers  also  point  out  that  no  created  being  could  have  re 
deemed  man :  a  God-Man  was  required  to  give  condign  satis 
faction  to  God's  offended  Majesty.  Christ's  satisfaction,  how 
ever,  is  not  only  condign,  but  also  superabundant ;  for  whatever 
He  did  or  suffered  had  an  infinite  moral  value. 

5°.  Ecclesiology. —  As  the  Fathers  of  Chalcedon  ascribed 
the  Nicene-Constantinopolitan  Creed  to  the  Second  General 
Council,  this  symbol  was  soon  after  received  into  the  liturgy. 
In  it  occurs  the  phrase :  We  believe  "  in  One,  Holy,  Catholic, 
and  Apostolic  Church."  This  may  be  said  to  represent,  in 
general  outline,  the  ecclesiological  teaching  of  the  period  with 
which  we  are  now  concerned.  As  there  is  only  one  baptism, 
and  one  faith,  the  members  of  the  Church  are  necessarily 
united  into  one  body ;  and  therefore  the  Church  is  One.  Such 
was  the  view  taken  of  it  in  the  East,  where  the  unity  of  gov 
ernment  was  ordinarily  but  little  emphasized;  whereas  in  the 


GENERAL  THEOLOGY  469 

West  greater  insistence  was  placed  upon  the  unity  that  arises 
from  due  subjection  of  the  faithful  to  a  divinely  constituted 
authority.  This  one  Church  was  destined  by  Christ  to  em 
brace  all  mankind,  and  does  so  even  now  to  a  large  extent; 
hence  she  is  also  Catholic,  and  outside  her  pale  there  is  no 
salvation.  Founded  for  the  very  purpose  of  sanctifying  her 
members,  she  is  necessarily  Holy;  yet  this  holiness  does  not 
mean  that  she  is  exclusively  made  up  of  the  just,  for  she  is  a 
"  corpus  mixtum  " ;  but  rather  that  she  offers  to  every  one  of 
her  children  efficacious  means  of  salvation.  Such  the  Church 
has  been  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  who  preached  the  same 
faith,  administered  the  same  sacraments,  and  whose  work  is 
continued  by  the  priesthood  of  to-day;  consequently  she  is 
truly  Apostolic. 

All  this,  as  will  be  readily  noticed,  marks  no  advance  over 
the  teaching  of  the  fourth-century  Fathers.  Their  views  on 
the  Church  of  Christ  are  preserved,  but  there  is  no  attempt  to 
lengthen  the  lines  of  development.  In  the  West  there  was  no 
need  of  it,  as  Augustine  had  practically  accomplished  the  work 
at  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century ;  but  in  the  East  there  was 
both  need  and  opportunity,  at  least  of  appropriating  the  clearer 
views  of  their  Western  contemporaries.  And  the  reason  why 
it  was  not  done  arose  to  a  great  extent  from  the  subserviency 
of  the  episcopate  to  the  secular  power.  Although  individual 
bishops  protested  that  they  held  their  power  from  God,  that 
lay  persons  might  not  presume  to  pass  judgment  upon  them, 
that  even  the  dignity  of  princes  was  inferior  to  theirs,  yet  as 
a  body  they  weakly  submitted  to  the  arrogance  of  dogmatizing 
emperors,  who,  in  not  few  instances,  summoned  and  dissolved 
local  synods  without  anybody's  leave,  accepted  or  rejected  con- 
ciliar  decisions  as  they  saw  fit,  issued  professions  of  faith  as 
the  spirit  moved  them,  and  acted  in  every  way  as  if  they  were 
invested  with  supreme  authority  in  the  Church  of  Christ.  By 
an  unfortunate  concession  acquiesced  in  by  the  Councils  of 
Constantinople  and  Chalcedon,  although  persistently  opposed 
by  the  Popes,  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  obtained  the  first 
place  after  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  as  he  was  frequently 
little  more  than  a  court-prelate,  the  emperors  had  a  free  hand. 


470  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

This  not  only  prepared  the  way  for  a  final  schism,  but  also 
sapped  the  vitality  of  Eastern  Christianity  while  still  in  union 
with  the  Church  of  Christ. 

However,  with  all  this  secularizing  tendency,  the  East  never 
ceased  during  these  troublous  times  to  acknowledge  the  Pri 
macy  of  the  Apostolic  See.  The  Roman  Church  was  to  bish 
ops  and  people  the  Church  of  Peter,  and  Peter  was  by  all  of 
them  considered  as  the  Rock  upon  which  the  Church  was 
built.  Theodoret,  Flavian,  John  Talaias,  and  even  Nestorius, 
Eutyches,  and  Sergius,  appealed  to  the  Popes  as  the  highest 
authority  in  matters  of  doctrine  and  Church  government;  and 
no  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  ever  regarded  himself  as  firmly 
established  in  his  see  unless  his  election  were  ratified  and  con 
firmed  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  Hence  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  during  these  centuries  the  entire  Eastern  Church  recog 
nized  the  Primacy  of  Rome,  even  if  through  self-interest  many 
a  bishop  thrust  it  aside  at  critical  moments.  Celestine,  Leo, 
Hormisdas,  and  Agatho  were  perfectly  cognizant  of  this  when 
they  dictated  the  faith  to  Eastern  Councils;  and,  as  Eastern 
historians  themselves  testify,  no  one  ever  thought  that  in  pur 
suing  this  course  the  Popes  went  beyond  the  legitimate  extent 
of  their  authority. 

In  the  West,  during  these  same  centuries,  the  Primacy  of 
Rome  was  universally  acknowledged;  and  this  even  notwith 
standing  the  fact  that,  in  opposition  to  the  Fifth  General  Coun 
cil  and  to  Pope  Vigilius,  some  Western  provinces  withdrew 
for  a  time  from  communion  with  Rome.  Peter  was  believed 
to  have  been  constituted  by  Christ  as  the  foundation  and  head 
of  the  universal  Church,  her  master  and  her  infallible  teacher, 
and  Peter  continued  to  live  and  teach  in  his  successors.  Hence 
in  questions  of  doctrine  and  general  discipline  the  decisions  of 
the  Pope  were  received  as  final,  and  his  decretals  had  the  same 
force  as  the  canons  of  councils.  Fulgentius  of  Ruspe,  Maxi- 
mus  of  Turin,  Peter  Chrysologus,  and  Venerable  Bede  bear 
witness  to  this;  while  Leo  and  Gregory  frequently  enlarge 
upon  the  authority  of  the  Roman  See  as  a  fact  that  is  under 
stood  and  acknowledged  by  all. 

6°.  The  Sacraments. —  Sacramental  theology  was  during 


GENERAL  THEOLOGY  471 

this  period  retarded  in  its  development  rather  than  advanced. 
This  was  largely  owing  to  Isidore  of  Seville,  who  set  aside  the 
Augustinian  definition  of  the  sacraments  as  efficacious  signs 
and  reverted  to  the  antiquated  notion  of  mysteries.  Speaking 
of  the  three  sacraments  of  initiation,  he  says :  "  They  are 
called  sacraments  because  under  the  cover  of  corporeal  things 
the  divine  virtue  effects  in  a  hidden  manner  the  secret  and 
sacred  operations  of  salvation,  which  they  were  intended  to 
confer."  8  The  external  rite  is  indeed  a  sign,  and  is  accom 
panied  by  a  spiritual  effect  in  the  soul,  but  its  symbolic  signifi 
cance  is  pushed  into  the  background.  Instead  of  manifesting, 
it  is  intended  to  hide  the  "  secret  and  sacred  operations  "  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Isidore's  views  were  adopted  by  many  sub 
sequent  writers,  especially  during  the  ninth  century.  The 
number  of  the  sacraments,  in  so  far  as  the  use  of  the  term 
itself  came  in  question,  was  not  yet  determined.  Isidore  ap 
plies  the  term  to  baptism,  confirmation,  and  the  Eucharist; 
Leo  designates  holy  orders  as  the  "  sacramenta  sacerdotii," 
and  Salvianus  of  Marseilles  calls  matrimony  the  "  connubii 
sacramenta."  In  the  East  the  Pseudo-Areopagite  gave  a  list 
of  six  sacraments  or  mysteries;  baptism,  confirmation,  the 
Eucharist,  orders,  monastic  profession,  and  funeral  rites. 
This  list  was  often  repeated  by  subsequent  writers.  Hence 
although,  as  was  pointed  out  in  a  previous  chapter,  the  seven 
religious  rites,  now  exclusively  designated  as  sacraments,  were 
universally  regarded  as  essential  to  the  Christian  religion,  they 
were  not  yet  gathered  under  one  specific  term  which  set  them 
apart  from  other  and  somewhat  similar  rites. 

In  regard  to  the  validity  of  the  sacraments  when  admin 
istered  by  heretics  there  was  still  some  confusion  in  the  dif 
ferent  churches.  However,  excepting  holy  orders,  the  mere 
fact  of  heresy  by  itself  was  hardly  anywhere  considered  as 
invalidating  the  sacramental  rite.  All  depended  on  the  kind  of 
heresy  in  which  the  sacraments  were  conferred.  Thus  when 
ever  baptism  was  administered  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  was  not  repeated  either 

8De  Corpora  et  Sanguine  Domini,  8. 


472  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

in  the  East  or  the  West;  unless,  indeed,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  was  denied  by  the  heretics  in  question.  Hence  con 
verts  from  heresy  were  usually  reconciled  by  a  simple  imposi 
tion  of  hands  in  poenitentiam,  though  this  was  in  some  places 
accompanied  by  an  unction  with  holy  chrism.  From  this  latter 
ceremony  it  has  sometimes  been  inferred  that  confirmation 
was  repeated,  but  the  evidence  is  rather  in  favor  of  the  con 
trary  view. 

Baptism  and  confirmation  were  still  conferred  on  the  same 
occasion ;  the  former  by  a  triple  immersion  which  was  accom 
panied  by  an  invocation  of  the  Blessed  Trinity,  and  the  latter 
by  the  imposition  of  hands  and  the  anointing  of  the  forehead 
with  blessed  chrism.  For  confirmation  the  Egyptian  Church 
Constitutions  give  the  formula :  "  I  anoint  thee  through  God 
the  Father  Almighty,  and  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.'* 

The  Holy  Eucharist  was  to  all  the  sacrament  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ.  Tixeront  sums  up  the  teaching  of  the 
Eastern  Church  at  this  time  as  follows :  ( i )  In  the  Eucha 
rist  we  receive  really  and  truly  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ.  (2)  That  body  and  blood  are  there  through  the  effi 
cacy  either  of  the  words  of  institution,  or  of  the  epiclesis,  or 
of  both.  (3)  Those  words,  or  the  Holy  Spirit  whom  they 
invoke,  produce  in  the  oblata  a  /x€Ta/?oA^  (change),  the  mys 
tery  of  which  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  and  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa 
endeavored  to  explain.  (4)  The  Eucharistic  liturgy  consti 
tutes  a  sacrifice.  (5)  The  reception  of  the  Eucharist  washes 
away  our  sins,  unites  us  to  God,  and  implants  in  our  bodies  a 
germ  of  life  and  immortality.9 

With  two  slight  modifications,  this  summary  also  represents 
the  Western  teaching  on  the  Eucharist  at  the  time.  These  two 
modifications  are  in  reference  to  the  epiclesis  and  the  manner 
in  which  the  Real  Presence  was  considered.  Although  the 
epiclesis  occurs  in  some  Western  liturgies,  especially  in  those 
of  the  Gallican  type,  nevertheless  the  common  teaching  was 
that  the  change  in  the  oblata  must  be  attributed  to  the  words  of 
institution.  Then  as  regards  the  Real  Presence,  this  was  held 

9  H.  D.  ill,  226. 


GENERAL  THEOLOGY  473 

just  as  firmly  in  the  West  as  in  the  East,  but  there  was  at 
work  a  tendency  to  emphasize  the  spiritual  aspect  of  the 
Eucharist.  It  is  not  the  mere  eating  of  Christ's  body  and  the 
drinking  of  His  blood  that  profits  unto  salvation,  but  the  be 
coming  united  with  Him  through  faith  and  charity  of  which 
the  Eucharist  is  a  symbol.  In  this  Augustine's  influence  is 
discernible,  but  there  is  nowhere  a  trace  of  a  merely  symbolic 
conception.10 

Penance  experienced  a  considerable  transformation  during 
this  period,  but  wholly  along  disciplinary  lines,  and  so  it  need 
not  detain  us  here.  The  principle  that  grievous  sins  must  be 
confessed  in  order  to  obtain  forgiveness  was  in  vigor  every 
where,  as  indeed  it  had  been  from  the  beginning  of  Christianity. 
Nor  did  anyone  question  the  traditional  belief  that  this  for 
giveness  was  effected  through  the  ministration  of  the  Church. 
From  the  fifth  century  forward,  public  penance  became  less 
frequent,  although  it  was  still  the  rule  for  sins  that  caused 
great  scandal.  The  duty  of  hearing  confessions  devolved 
more  and  more  upon  simple  priests,  and  especially  upon  monks. 
Considerable  attention  was  given  to  the  classification  of  sins 
as  venial  and  mortal,  of  which  St.  Csesarius  supplies  us  with 
the  following  example:  "Although  the  Apostle  mentions 
many  capital  sins,  nevertheless,  so  as  not  to  give  cause  for 
despair,  we  shall  briefly  enumerate  which  they  are:  sacrilege, 
homicide,  adultery,  false  witness,  theft,  rapine,  pride,  envy, 
avarice;  and,  if  it  lasts  for  a  long  time,  anger;  also  drunkenness 
if  very  great :  these  are  accounted  among  their  number."  n 
Then  turning  his  attention  to  venial  sins,  he  says :  "  What 
sins  are  slight,  although  known  to  all,  still  it  is  necessary  that 
we  should  mention  a  few  of  them.  As  often  as  one  takes  more 
food  or  drink  than  is  required,  he  must  understand  that  it  is 
a  slight  sin ;  and  also  when  one  speaks  more  than  is  becoming, 
or  is  unduly  silent."  12  Lists  of  this  kind  soon  found  their 
way  into  the  so-called  Penitentials,  or  books  intended  for 
the  guidance  of  the  confessor  in  determining  the  penance  that 
was  to  be  enjoined  for  the  different  sins.  Needless  to  say,  this 

10  Cfr.   Pourrat,  Teaching  of  the          «  Serm.  104,  2. 
Fathers  on  the  Real   Presence,  38         12  Ibid.  3. 
sqq. 


474  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

penance  was  very  severe  as  compared  to  our  modern  practice. 

Extreme  unction  is  rather  frequently  mentioned,  both  in 
the  East  and  West.  It  is  recommended  as  being  in  conformity 
with  the  direction  of  St.  James  to  anoint  the  sick.  A  little 
later  St.  Boniface  directed  his  missionary  priests  not  to  go  on 
a  journey  "  without  the  chrism,  the  blessed  oil,  and  the  Eucha 
rist/'  so  that  they  might  be  always  ready  to  minister  to  the 
spiritual  needs  of  the  faithful.13 

Holy  orders  are  spoken  of  in  detail  by  the  Pseudo-Areopa- 
gite,  who  mentions  that  the  three  higher  orders  are  conferred 
by  imposition  of  hands,  and  that  in  the  consecration  of  a  bishop 
the  Holy  Scriptures  are  held  open  over  the  head  of  the  can 
didate.  The  Constitutions  of  the  Egyptian  Church  give  the 
prayers  that  accompany  the  imposition  of  hands.  Besides  the 
three  higher  orders  there  are  those  of  the  subdeacon  and 
readers,  but  in  conferring  these  the  bishop  simply  recites  a 
prayer  and  hands  the  book  of  the  Epistles  to  the  candidates. 
The  same  five  orders  are  also  mentioned  by  John  Damascene, 
and  they  are  found  in  the  Greek  Church  to-day.  For  the 
Western  Church  similar  ceremonies  are  prescribed  in  the 
Statuta  Ecclesiae  Antiqua,  which,  however,  enumerate  nine 
orders.  To  the  three  major  and  four  minor  orders,  as  we  have 
them  at  present,  is  added  that  of  psalmists,  whilst  bishops  and 
priests  are  counted  separately. 

In  the  East  it  was  quite  a  common  practice  during  these 
centuries  to  reordain  those  who  had  received  their  ordination 
from  heretical  bishops,  but  up  to  the  sixth  century  this  was 
not  done  in  the  West.  About  that  time,  however,  the  custom 
was  also  introduced  in  some  Western  countries,  notably  in 
Britain,  through  the  ruling  of  Theodore  of  Canterbury  who 
before  his  elevation  to  that  see  was  a  Cilician  monk.  Similarly 
"  the  ordinations  made  by  the  intruded  Pope  Constantine  in 
768  were  probably  declared  null.  At  all  events,  it  is  certain 
that  Pope  Sergius  III  (904-911),  yielding  to  a  sentiment  of 
mean  revenge,  had  the  ordinations  made  by  Pope  Formosus 
repeated."  14 

13  Statuta,  29,  P.  L.  89,  823.  14  Cf  r.  Pourrat,  Theology  of  the 

Sacraments,  157. 


GENERAL  THEOLOGY 


475 


Matrimony  was  regarded  by  all  as  a  state  which  Christ  had 
sanctified  by  His  presence  at  the  marriage  feast  in  Cana,  and 
which,  in  consequence,  the  Church  must  also  sanctify.  In  the 
West  it  was  sometimes  spoken  of  as  a  sacrament,  but  there  is 
nothing  definite  to  indicate  explicitly  that  this  term  was  taken 
in  the  strict  sense.  With  regard  to  its  permanency  there  were 
different  views.  The  Eastern  Church  allowed  absolute  di 
vorce  on  account  of  adultery,  but  only  in  favor  of  the  husband. 
The  Western  Church,  on  the  other  hand,  stood  firm  for  abso 
lute  indissolubility,  until  Theodore  of  Canterbury  introduced 
the  Greek  practice  into  Britain.  From  there  it  spread  to  some 
parts  of  Northern  France,  but  it  was  vigorously  opposed  by 
Rome  and  gradually  disappeared.  Disparity  of  religion,  af 
finity  arising  from  baptism,  consanguinity,  rape,  and  sponsalia 
were  some  of  the  impediments  that  made  marriage  invalid. 

These  few  remarks  on  the  principal  topics  of  general  the 
ology,  as  it  is  found  in  the  writings  that  belong  to  the  last 
three  centuries  of  the  Patristic  age,  might  be  very  fittingly  con 
cluded  by  a  brief  analysis  of  the  writings  of  St.  John  Dama 
scene,  who  gave  Greek  theology  the  form  which  it  has  retained 
till  the  present  time.  However  the  compendious  nature  of 
this  book  makes  it  advisable  not  to  attempt  anything  so  pre 
tentious.  Nor  is  there  real  need  of  it  as  far  as  the  demands 
of  the  History  of  Dogmas  go.  For  John  Damascene,  al 
though  a  Doctor  of  the  Church,  was  not  an  original  writer; 
he  was  a  compiler  and  to  some  extent  a  systematizer.  He 
faithfully  gathered  together  what  was  contained  in  the  writ 
ings  of  his  predecessors,  and  then  reproduced  it  in  his  Sources 
of  Knowledge  as  a  fairly  compact  system  of  theological 
teaching.  Moreover  the  work  which  made  him  justly  famous, 
his  defense  of  the  veneration  of  images,  will  be  considered  in 
the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  XXXII 

THE  IMAGE  CONTROVERSY:  THE  SEVENTH  GENERAL 

COUNCIL  i 

By  images,  in  this  connection,  are  understood  representa 
tions  of  our  Blessed  Saviour,  of  angels,  and  of  saints,  whether 
in  painting,  mosaic,  or  statuary.  In  regard  to  them  two  things 
must  be  clearly  distinguished:  use  and  veneration.  The  use 
of  images  may  be  of  various  kinds:  (a)  for  decorative  pur 
poses,  whether  in  churches  or  out  of  them;  (b)  for  instruc 
tion,  in  so  far  as  they  are  a  concrete  representation  of  past 
events  or  mysteries  of  the  faith;  (c)  for  the  promotion  of 
piety,  in  as  much  as  by  their  appeal  to  the  heart  they  draw 
the  beholder  to  God.  Veneration  consists  in  the  outward 
manifestation  of  respect  and  reverence,  and  as  such  it  may 
be  absolute  or  relative.  It  is  absolute  when  it  terminates  at 
the  object  towards  which  it  is  proximately  directed;  it  is  rela 
tive  when  it  reaches  beyond  the  immediate  object  and  termi 
nates  at  a  prototype.  The  veneration  of  images  is  always 
relative,  that  is,  it  passes  on  to  the  person  represented  by  the 
image.  Again,  this  relative  veneration  may  be  an  act  of  divine 
worship  or  of  simple  respect  and  reverence  due  to  creatures, 
according  as  the  image  represents  a  divine  or  a  created  person. 
In  the  former  case  it  is  called  adoration,  in  the  latter  it  is 
now  commonly  designated  by  the  generic  term  of  veneration, 
although  in  past  ages  the  term  adoration,  taken  in  a  wider 
sense  as  equivalent  to  veneration,  was  quite  frequently  used. 

The  image  controversy  extended  both  to  the  East  and  the 

*Cfr.    Hefele,    History    of    the  lungen  der  allerseligsten   Jungfrau 

Councils,  V,  342-391 ;  Tixeront,  H.  und  Gottesgebaererin  Maria  auf  den 

D.  Ill,  420-467;   Funk,  Kirchenge-  Kunstdenkmaelern    in     den    Kata- 

schichtliche  Abhandlungen,  I;  Wil-  komben;  McGinnis,  The  Commun- 

pert,   Die   Malereien   in   den   Kata-  ion  of  Saints,  258-327. 
komben  Roms;  Liell,  Die  Darstel- 

476 


THE  IMAGE  CONTROVERSY 


477 


West,  but  under  different  aspects.  In  the  East  it  involved  not 
only  the  veneration  but  also  the  use  of  images,  whereas  in  the 
West  it  was  restricted  to  veneration  only,  no  objection  being 
made  to  the  use  of  images  even  in  churches. 

A  —  HISTORICAL  ASPECT  OF  THE  QUESTION 

It  is  historically  certain  that  the  Church  made  use  of  images 
from  the  earliest  years  of  her  existence.  This  appears  to 
evidence  from  ancient  writers  and  from  discoveries  made  in 
the  Catacombs.  Nor  was  she  at  all  particular  about  the  ob 
jects  represented,  provided  they  bore  some  relation  to  persons 
or  events  or  mysteries  connected  with  the  faith.  They  were 
taken  indifferently  from  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  or  even 
from  the  lives  of  the  saints.  Thus  in  the  Catacombs  are 
found  representatives  of  Noe  and  the  Deluge,  of  Daniel  in  the 
lion's  den,  of  Moses  striking  the  rock,  of  the  Good  Shepherd, 
of  the  wise  and  foolish  virgins,  of  the  vine  and  the  branches. 
There  are  images  of  the  Saviour,  of  the  Mother  and  Child, 
and  of  the  martyrs  of  the  faith.  Baptism,  the  Eucharist,  and 
other  liturgical  subjects  are  represented,  either  in  painting  or 
done  in  mosaic.  Even  a  bronze  statue  of  Sts.  Peter  and 
Paul,  dating,  it  is  commonly  believed,  from  the  second  cen 
tury,  is  among  the  objects  unearthed  from  beneath  the  wreck 
age  of  ancient  Rome.2  Tertullian  mentions  that  it  was  quite 
common  to  have  images  of  the  Good  Shepherd  engraven  on 
the  sacred  vessels  used  in  the  liturgical  service.3 

Most  of  these  representations  date  from  times  of  persecu 
tion,  when  the  Church  was  still  forced  to  shun  the  light  of  day, 
and  was  therefore  much  restricted  in  developing  the  solemnity 
of  her  worship.  After  she  had  been  set  free  by  Constantine 
and  was  allowed  to  erect  her  magnificent  basilicas,  she  had  no 
hesitation  about  adorning  their  walls  with  the  pictured  story 
of  her  faith  and  worship,  and  so  to  assist  the  unlettered  in 
realizing  more  intimately  the  full  import  of  her  teaching. 
Hence  St.  Basil,  while  delivering  a  panegyric  on  St.  Barlaam, 
who  had  been  martyred  for  the  faith,  thus  appeals  to  the 

2  McGinnis,  op.  cit.  275.  8  De  Pudic.  7,  10. 


478  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

artists  for  an  exercise  of  their  skill  in  the  saint's  honor: 
"  Arise,  O  distinguished  artists :  perfect  this  poor  word  picture 
of  the  martyr.  With  deft  stroke  depict  in  vivid  color  the 
triumphs  of  this  valiant  athlete.  Let  him  stand  forth  to  the 
gaze  a  victorious  champion.  On  your  storied  canvas  depict 
also  Christ,  the  Head  of  the  martyrs."  4 

But  whilst  the  common  view  and  practice  thus  undoubtedly 
favored  the  use  of  images,  there  were  not  wanting  some  who 
thought  it  proper  to  raise  their  voices  in  protest.  A  few  of 
them,  like  Tertullian  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  seemed  to 
think  that  the  Old  Testament  prohibition  applied  also  to  the 
New  Dispensation,  and  so  they  would  do  away  with  all  images ; 
whilst  others,  among  them  Minutius  Felix  and  Lactantius,  did 
not  object  to  images  as  such  but  only  to  those  that  represented 
God  in  human  guise.  Frequently,  too,  the  Synod  of  Elvira 
in  Spain,  held  about  305,  is  adduced  as  opposed  to  the  use 
of  images.  It  decreed  "  that  pictures  should  not  be  painted 
in  churches,  and  that  objects  which  are  worshiped  and  adored 
must  not  be  painted  on  walls."  5  But  whether  this  decree  was 
inspired  by  opposition  to  the  use  of  images  or  by  the  desire 
to  correct  abuses  that  had  crept  in  is  not  altogether  clear.  At 
all  events,  there  is  no  record  of  any  general  Church  legisla 
tion  on  this  matter,  and  yet  the  use  of  images  was  practically 
universal.  Hence  the  necessary  inference  is  that  the  Church 
considered  it  to  be  in  no  way  opposed  to  the  purity  of  her 
faith. 

In  regard  to  the  veneration  of  images  the  practice  of  the 
early  Church  is  less  firmly  established.  The  fact  that  images 
of  our  Blessed  Saviour  and  His  Holy  Mother  are  found  in 
the  earliest  places  of  worship  may  indeed  well  imply  that  some 
kind  of  veneration  was  paid  them,  and  many  modern  writers 
maintain  this ;  but  the  inference  is  perhaps  not  altogether  cer 
tain.  Though  the  Church  even  then  approved  of  image 
veneration  in  principle  as  she  does  now,  circumstances  were 
such  that  one  would  hardly  expect  her  to  have  encouraged  it 
in  practice.  For  large  numbers  of  her  children  were  converts 

4Orat.  in  Barlaam,  3.  5  Mansi,  2,  n;  cfr.  Funk,  op.  cit. 

I,  346-352. 


THE  IMAGE  CONTROVERSY  479 

from  paganism,  whose  memories  were  still  filled  with  recol 
lections  of  idol-worship,  and  hence  she  might  well  fear  that 
the  veneration  of  images  would  be  misunderstood  or  lead  to 
abuse.  Hence  if  the  practice  obtained  at  all,  it  is  not  likely 
to  have  been  very  common. 

But  however  the  matter  may  stand  in  this  regard,  it  is  quite 
certain  that  the  Church  regarded  the  veneration  of  images  to 
be  in  perfect  conformity  with  her  belief.  For  as  soon  as 
conditions  had  sufficiently  changed  to  make  the  practice  safe, 
she  allowed  it  to  grow  up  without  a  word  of  protest. 
Scarcely  half  a  century  after  she  had  been  liberated  by  Con- 
stantine,  Julian  the  Apostate  reproached  the  Christians  with 
adoring  the  wood  of  the  cross  and  the  painted  images  on  the 
walls  of  their  houses,  which  obviously  supposes  veneration 
of  some  kind.6  About  the  same  time  Asterius  of  Amasea 
describes  pictures  that  represented  St.  Euphemia,  and  adds 
that  the  cross  was  adored  by  Christian  worshipers.7  A  cen 
tury  later,  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  refers  to  the  adoration  of  the 
cross  as  a  common  practice  among  Greeks  and  Barbarians.8 
And  similar  testimonies  are  found  in  the  works  of  contem 
porary  Western  writers. 

Nor  do  these  writers  only  bear  witness  to  the  fact,  but  they 
also  explain  the  principle.  Thus  Cyril  of  Alexandria  writes 
in  the  first  part  of  the  fifth  century :  "  Though  we  make 
images  of  saintly  men,  we  do  not  venerate  them  as  gods,  but 
merely  wish  to  be  inspired  by  their  example  to  imitate  them. 
But  the  image  of  Christ  we  make  in  order  to  fire  our  hearts 
with  love  for  Him.  Assuredly  we  do  not  adore  a  perishable 
image  or  the  likeness  of  a  perishable  man.  But  since  God, 
without  changing  Himself,  condescended  to  become  man,  we 
represent  Him  as  a  man,  though  we  are  well  aware  that  He 
is  by  nature  God.  We  do  not,  therefore,  call  the  image  God, 
but  we  know  that  He  whom  it  represents  is  God."  9 

A  century  later,  the  deacon  Rusticus,  nephew  of  Pope 
Vigilius,  thus  argues  against  the  Monophysites :  "  We  adore 

6  Cyril  Alexand.  Cont.  Jul.  6 ;  P.      337. 

G.  48,  826.  8  Grace.  Aff.  Curat.  6. 

7  In  Laud.  S.  Euphem.  P.  G.  40,         9  In  Ps.  113,  16. 


480  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

the  cross  and  through  it  Him  whose  cross  it  is;  however  we 
do  not  adore  the  cross  along  with  Christ."  10  It  is  a  divine 
worship,  but  only  relative.  It  does  not  have  the  material  cross 
for  its  object,  but  Christ  who  suffered  on  the  cross  for  the 
redemption  of  the  world.  It  is  not  the  wood  that  is  adored, 
nor  the  mere  form  of  the  cross,  but  the  crucified  God-Man 
who  sanctified  the  wood  of  the  cross  by  the  outpouring  of  His 
blood.  This  was  even  more  clearly  explained  by  Leontius  of 
Neapolis  who  wrote  a  few  years  later.  "  When  the  two  parts 
of  the  cross  are  united/5  he  says,  "  I  adore  it,  because  of 
Christ  who  was  crucified  thereon;  when  they  are  separated,  I 
cast  them  aside  and  burn  them.  When  we,  the  sons  of 
Christians,  adore  the  cross,  we  do  not  worship  the  substance 
of  the  wood;  but  we  consider  it  as  the  seal  and  signature  of 
Christ :  through  it  we  salute  and  adore  Him  who  was  crucified 
on  it.  Thus  also,  when  we  Christians  possess  and  salute  an 
image  of  Christ,  or  of  an  Apostle,  or  of  a  martyr,  we  think 
of  Christ  or  His  martyr."  1X  Not  even  St.  Thomas  could 
have  given  a  clearer  or  more  orthodox  exposition. 

As  is  evident  from  the  last  part  of  the  above  citation,  not 
only  the  adoration  of  the  cross,  but  also  the  veneration  of 
images  representing  saints  was  a  well  established  practice  to 
wards  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  when  Leontius  wrote  in 
its  defense  against  those  who  charged  the  Christians  with 
idolatry.  This  had  grown  up  rather  slowly,  but  there  are 
records  of  it  about  a  century  earlier.  Thus  Theodoret  relates 
that  in  Rome  the  Christians  placed  statuettes  of  Simon  Stylites 
in  the  vestibules  of  their  houses  in  order  to  secure  the  saint's 
protection.12  When  Fortunatus,  in  the  early  part  of  the  sixth 
century,  was  suffering  from  a  disease  of  the  eyes,  he  was 
cured  by  using  oil  from  a  lamp  that  was  kept  burning  before 
an  image  of  St.  Martin  in  one  of  the  churches  of  Ravenna.13 
A  similar  practice  grew  up  in  the  East,  and  by  the  beginning 
of  the  seventh  century  was  firmly  established  in  Christian  com 
munities.  It  is  recorded  by  Maximus  the  Confessor  how  he 
and  his  companions,  when  gathered  at  a  conference,  fell  on 

1°  Cont.  Acephal. ;  P.  G.  67,  1218.         12  Hist.  Relig.  26;  P.  G.  82. 
11  Mansi,  13,  44-53.  13  De  Vita  Mart.  6,  690. 


THE  IMAGE  CONTROVERSY  481 

their  knees  and  kissed  the  holy  Gospels,  the  venerable  cross, 
and  the  image  of  our  Lord  and  His  Blessed  Mother.14 

Hence  it  was  not  only  the  common  people,  the  simple  and 
unlettered,  but  also  priests  and  bishops,  men  well  versed  in 
Scripture  and  theology,  who  paid  homage  and  religious  venera 
tion  to  the  images  of  the  saints.  They  understood  perfectly 
well  that  the  material  object  was  not  deserving  of  reverence, 
but  through  it  they  reverenced  the  saint  whom  it  was  intended 
to  represent.  As  Leontius  of  Neapolis  expressed  it :  "  When 
we  Christians  possess  and  salute  an  image  of  Christ,  or  of  an 
Apostle,  or  of  a  martyr,  we  think  of  Christ  or  His  martyr." 
Yet  it  is  quite  possible  that  here  and  there  abuses  crept  in. 
Some  of  the  more  simple  might  at  times  fail  to  distinguish 
between  the  representation  and  the  person  represented ;  others, 
again,  though  well  understanding  the  nature  of  the  cult,  might 
nevertheless  carry  it  to  extremes,  pinning  their  faith  to  pictures 
and  statues  and  forgetting  about  the  more  solemn  obligations 
of  their  religion:  but  as  every  good  gift  of  God  may  be  and 
is  at  times  abused,  the  Church  in  spite  of  all  these  casual  abuses 
never  felt  herself  called  upon  to  oppose  the  growing  practice 
of  venerating  the  images  of  God's  saints.  It  was  from  other 
quarters  that  opposition  finally  came. 

B  —  THE  ICONOCLAST  HERESY 

It  appears  that  the  first  opposition  to  images  and  their  ven 
eration  had  its  origin  at  Damascus  in  Syria,  where  the  Caliph, 
instigated,  it  is  said,  by  a  Jewish  magician,  ordered  the  destruc 
tion  of  all  paintings  and  statues  venerated  by  his  Christian 
subjects.  His  orders  were  immediately  carried  out  by  the 
Jewish  and  Mohammedan  populace,  who  even  went  to  such 
lengths  as  to  whitewash  the  walls  of  the  churches  so  as  to 
blot  out  the  images  depicted  thereon.  However  the  storm  in 
Syria  was  shortlived,  owing  to  the  death  of  the  Caliph.  His 
successor  looked  at  the  matter  in  a  different  light. 

Then  a  similar  storm  broke  out  in  the  Eastern  Empire. 
The  originators  were  a  number  of  discontented  bishops,  led 

14  P.  G.  90,  156. 


482  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

by  Constantine  of  Nacolia,  Thomas  of  Claudiopolis,  and  Theo- 
dosius  of  Ephesus,  who  prepared  the  way  for  the  violent  meas 
ures  of  Leo  the  Isaurian.  Leo,  who  was  but  an  ignorant  sol 
dier  clad  in  royal  purple,  gave  a  willing  ear  to  the  suggestion 
of  these  bishops.  The  idea  of  suppressing  this  recrudescence 
of  pagan  idolatry,  as  the  matter  was  represented  to  him.  agreed 
well  with  his  general  plan  of  reforming  Church  and  State. 
Hence  in  the  year  726,  he  issued  a  decree  ordering  the  removal 
of  all  holy  images  wherever  found.  This,  however,  met  with 
considerable  opposition.  At  Constantinople  some  of  his  offi 
cers,  who  tried  to  destroy  an  image  of  Christ  in  the  imperial 
palace,  were  killed  by  the  people.  In  Greece  and  the  Cyclades 
islands  a  formal  revolt  broke  out,  and  all  Italy  took  forcible 
measures  to  frustrate  the  Emperor's  designs.  This  made  him 
hesitate  for  a  while,  but  in  730  he  deposed  the  Patriarch 
Germanus,  whom  he  had  failed  to  terrify  into  submission,  and 
replaced  him  by  Anastasius.  This  latter  soon  became  a  pliant 
tool  of  the  government,  and  through  his  intervention  most  of 
the  Eastern  bishops  were  won  over  to  the  Emperor's  views. 

But  the  West  remained  firm  in  its  opposition.  Gregory  II, 
whilst  trying  his  best  to  preserve  political  union  with  Con 
stantinople,  threatened  Anastasius  with  deposition  unless  he 
changed  his  course,  and  at  the  same  time  he  wrote  several 
letters  to  the  Emperor  trying  to  bring  him  to  a  saner  state  of 
mind.  His  successor,  Gregory  III,  was  equally  firm,  and  after 
several  vain  efforts  to  come  to  an  understanding  with  Leo, 
he  convoked  a  synod  at  Rome  (731),  by  which  the  following 
declaration  was  drawn  up:  "  If  any  one  hereafter,  contemn 
ing  those  who  follow  the  ancient  custom  of  the  Apostolic 
Church,  is  found  to  be  an  assaulter,  destroyer,  profaner,  or 
blasphemer  of  the  veneration  of  sacred  images,  to  wit:  Of 
God  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  of  »His  Holy  Mother  the 
immaculate  and  glorious  ever  Virgin  Mary,  of  the  blessed 
Apostles  and  of  all  the  saints,  let  him  be  debarred  from  the 
body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  or  be  separated 
from  the  unity  and  communion  of  the  whole  Church."  15  The 

15  Lib.  Pontif.  i,  146. 


THE  IMAGE  CONTROVERSY  483 

Emperor's  answer  to  this  bold  decree  was  a  strong  fleet,  sent 
to  subdue  Italy  by  force;  but  it  was  wrecked  in  the  Adriatic 
Sea,  and  so  Italy  continued  in  its  opposition. 

Already  some  years  before  this  an  able  defender  of  the 
veneration  of  images  had  arisen  in  the  East,  who  was  soon 
looked  up  to  as  the  champion  of  orthodoxy  in  every  part  of  the 
Christian  world.  This  was  John  Damascene.  He  wrote 
three  different  treatises  on  the  subject  (726-731),  in  which 
he  explained  the  nature  of  the  veneration  of  images  and  showed 
that  it  was  in  perfect  accord  with  Christian  principles.  The 
prohibition  of  the  Old  Testament,  touching  this  matter,  he 
set  aside  as  affecting  only  the  Jews.  Then,  pointing  out  how 
this  created  world  is  an  image  of  the  Creator,  how  the  Old 
Testament  is  an  image  of  the  New,  how  the  Son  is  the  Image 
of  the  Father,  he  showed  from  the  nature  of  image-venera 
tion  itself,  that,  so  far  from  being  idolatrous,  it  contributes 
greatly  to  the  honor  and  glory  of  God. 

It  is  true,  he  says,  these  images  are  material  and  created 
things,  but  the  question  is  precisely,  whether  material  and 
created  things  cannot  be  an  object  of  veneration.  Are  not  the 
body  and  the  blood  of  the  Saviour  created?  Yet  they  are 
objects  of  adoration.  Are  not  the  chalices  and  other  conse 
crated  vessels  material?  Yet  they  are  objects  of  veneration. 
Why,  then,  not  the  cross  and  images? 

Furthermore,  the  veneration  of  the  cross  and  of  images  is 
not  absolute ;  it  is  only  relative.  It  is  not  directed  to  the  ma 
terial  objects,  but  to  the  persons  represented.  This  funda 
mental  principle  was  already  proclaimed  by  St.  Basil,  who 
wrote :  "  The  honor  paid  to  images  passes  over  to  the  pro 
totype." 

Again,  one  must  distinguish  between  adoration  in  a  strict 
sense  and  in  a  wider  .sense.  The  former  is  an  act  of  divine 
worship,  and  as  such  can  be  directed  only  to  a  divine  person, 
or,  in  a  relative  sense,  to  things  in  some  special  way  consecrated 
by  their  intimate  connection  with  the  Godhead.  The  latter  is 
simply  a  testification  of  respect  and  honor,  on  account  of  some 
created  excellence,  and  may  therefore  be  paid  to  persons  or 
their  representations  without  the  least  trace  of  idolatry.  This 


484  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

veneration  is  religious,  when  the  excellence  that  calls  it  forth 
is  of  a  religious  nature;  it  is  civil,  when  that  excellence  is 
merely  natural.  Hence  if  on  account  of  some  natural  excel 
lence,  whether  of  person  or  position,  civil  veneration  may  be 
paid  to  masters,  princes,  and  emperors,  as  all  admit;  why,  on 
account  of  a  higher  excellence,  may  not  religious  veneration 
be  paid  to  the  saints  of  God,  whether  directly  or  through  their 
images  ? 

Add  to  this,  that,  aside  from  their  veneration,  images  are 
very  useful  to  the  people :  they  are  the  books  of  the  illiterate, 
reminders  of  God's  goodness  and  the  Saviour's  mercy,  preach 
ers  of  holy  lives,  and  channels  of  divine  grace;  hence  to  de 
stroy  them  is  as  cruel  as  it  is  impious.  And  finally,  whatever 
be  the  religious  aspect  of  the  question,  it  is  certainly  not  for 
the  Emperor  to  mix  himself  up  with  matters  that  lie  beyond 
his  jurisdiction :  he  has  been  appointed  to  rule  the  State,  not 
to  dominate  over  the  Church  of  God.16 

Leo  died  on  June  18,  740,  and  was  succeeded  by  his  son, 
Constantine  V,  surnamed  Copronymous.  Owing  to  political 
troubles,  Constantine  allowed  matters  to  rest  until  753,  when 
he  thought  himself  strong  enough  to  put  his  father's  designs 
into  execution.  For  this  purpose  he  convened  a  council  at 
Constantinople,  at  which,  however,  neither  the  Patriarchs  of 
Antioch,  Jerusalem,  and  Alexandria,  nor  the  Pope  were  repre 
sented.  It  was  presided  over  by  the  Iconoclast  Theodosius 
of  Ephesus,  son  of  the  former  Emperor  Tiberius  II.  The 
Acts  of  this  synod,  preserved  by  the  Seventh  General  Council, 
give  the  following  reasons  for  the  condemnation  of  images: 

i°.  It  is  impossible  to  paint  the  image  of  Jesus  Christ: 
because  the  artist  either  pretends  to  represent  the  God-Man, 
and  then  he  circumscribes  the  divinity  and  confounds  the  na-' 
tures,  and  thereby  becomes  a  Monophysite ;  or  he  wishes  to 
represent  only  the  humanity,  and  then  he  divides  the  natures, 
and  by  so  doing  he  becomes  a  Nestorian.  Obviously  those 
who  venerate  these  images  share  in  the  one  or  the  other  heresy. 
The  only  true  image  of  the  Saviour,  given  us  by  Himself,  is 
the  Eucharist :  let  the  faithful  adore  this. 

16  P.  G.  94,  1232-1420. 


THE  IMAGE  CONTROVERSY  485 

2°.  So,  too,  is  it  impossible  to  represent  the  Godhead,  or 
any  one  of  the  three  divine  persons.  Such  representations 
all  suppose  that  God  is  material  and  finite,  which  is  obviously 
heretical. 

3°.  Images  of  the  Virgin,  and  of  the  saints  generally,  are 
simply  idols,  and  as  such  they  cannot  be  tolerated  among 
Christians:  to  venerate  them  is  to  practice  idolatry. 

4°.  Furthermore,  even  if  it  were  not  idolatry,  still  it  would 
not  be  right;  for  since  the  saints  are  with  God,  it  would  be 
an  impious  attempt  to  prolong  their  stay  on  earth  by  means  of 
images  and  to  represent  their  glorious  persons  by  such  vile 
matter. 

5°.  Finally,  the  veneration  of  images  is  evidently  against  the 
teaching  of  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Fathers.17 

These  several  reasons  adduced  against  the  use  and  venera 
tion  of  images  are  followed  by  a  number  of  anathematisms, 
summing  up  the  doctrine  of  the  synod  and  condemning  such 
persons  as  Germanus,  the  former  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
George  of  Cyrus,  and  above  all  Mansour,  by  which  opprobrious 
epithet  they  designated  John  Damascene.  Attention  is  also 
called  to  the  lawfulness  of  the  invocation  of  Holy  Mary  and 
of  the  other  saints,  so  as  to  counteract  extreme  measures  in 
this  regard. 

When  the  synod  was  over,  the  work  of  destruction  began. 
Churches  were  profaned,  images  and  statues  were  destroyed 
wherever  found,  and  bishops,  priests,  and  even  the  laity  were 
required  to  subscribe  the  decisions  of  the  synod.  Most  of  the 
secular  clergy  yielded,  but  no  impression  could  be  made  on  the 
monks.  They  stood  up  bravely  for  the  teaching  and  practice 
of  the  Church,  ready  to  endure  exile,  torture,  and  death.  The 
persecution  reached  its  height  in  761,  when  it  almost  looked 
as  if  the  days  of  Diocletian  had  returned.  Even  Constantine, 
the  original  instigator  of  the  whole  trouble,  fell  a  victim  to 
the  fury  of  the  imperial  tyrant.  It  was,  however,  mostly 
confined  to  the  East,  where  it  was  kept  up  till  the  Emperor's 
death  in  775. 

17Mansi,  13,  208-356. 


486  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

C  —  THE  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL 

During  the  short  reign  of  Leo  IV  (775-780),  who  had  suc 
ceeded  Constantine  Copronymus,  the  persecution  practically 
ceased;  and  when  on  his  death  the  Empress  Irene  was  ap 
pointed  regent  for  her  infant  son,  the  work  of  restoration  com 
menced.  The  new  patriarch,  Tarasius,  was  a  staunch  defender 
of  image  veneration  and  made  a  strenuous  effort  to  have  the 
dispute  finally  settled  by  a  general  council.  The  Pope  and 
the  Empress  both  favored  the  patriarch's  proposal,  and  after 
several  futile  attempts  to  hold  the  sessions  at  Constantinople, 
it  was  finally  decided  to  convoke  the  council  at  Nicsea.  There, 
on  the  24th  of  September,  787,  about  330  bishops  convened, 
under  the  presidency  of  Tarasius,  the  Pope  being  represented 
by  the  Archpriest  Peter  and  the  Abbot  Peter.  Two  monks, 
John  and  Thomas,  acted  as  representatives  of  the  Eastern 
patriarchs,  who,  on  account  of  the  Arab  invasion,  were  unable 
to  communicate  with  Constantinople. 

Eight  sessions  were  held,  of  which  only  three  are  of  any 
dogmatic  interest.  In  the  second  session  the  Pope's  letters 
to  Irene  and  Tarasius  were  read,  and  the  latter  declared  that 
the  doctrine  contained  therein  should  be  accepted.  In  the 
fourth  session  passages  were  cited  from  Holy  Scripture  and 
the  Fathers,  whereby  the  lawfulness  of  invoking  the  saints  and 
of  venerating  their  images  was  proved.  Finally  it  was  de 
cided  that  not  only  the  images  of  the  cross,  but  also  those  of 
the  Saviour,  of  His  Blessed  Mother,  and  of  the  angels  and 
the  saints,  should  be  exposed  publicly,  and  that  such  venera 
tion  should  be  paid  them  as  was  due  to  the  persons  represented. 
The  cultus  latrice,  or  divine  worship,  must  be  paid  to  God 
alone;  but  such  other  signs  of  religious  veneration  as  kissing 
the  images,  lighting  lamps  before  them,  and  burning  incense, 
are  rightly  applicable  to  the  representations  of  God's  saints, 
as  they  are  also  applied  to  the  venerable  cross  and  the  holy 
Gospels:  for  the  honor  paid  to  the  image  is  referred  to  the 
original.18 

These  decisions  of  Nicaea  officially  closed  the  ecclesiastical 

18  Mansi,   12,   13. 


THE  SEVENTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL     487 

dispute  concerning  the  veneration  of  images,  but  it  took  about 
half  a  century  longer  before  the  disturbances  caused  by  it 
entirely  disappeared.  Some  of  the  subsequent  Emperors  fol 
lowed  more  or  less  in  the  footsteps  of  Leo  the  Isaurian  and 
Constantine  Copronymus.  Leo  V  (813-820)  was  especially 
fierce  in  his  opposition  to  the  Council,  which  was,  however, 
strongly  defended  by  the  Patriarch  Nicephorus  and  Theodore 
Studita.  Conditions  were  almost  as  bad  under  Theophilus 
(829-842)  ;  but  after  his  death,  Patriarch  John  Hylilas  held 
a  synod  at  Constantinople,  which  accepted  the  decisions  of 
Nicsea  and  anathematized  the  Iconoclasts,  and  with  this  the 
hundred  years'  war  against  the  images  came  to  a  close  in  the 
East. 

Meanwhile,  however,  trouble  arose  in  the  West.  This  was 
first  occasioned  by  a  defective  translation  of  the  Acts  of  Nicsea, 
which  had  been  sent  to  Charlemagne  in  788.  Touching  the 
veneration  of  images,  it  stated :  "  I  receive  and  honorably 
cherish  the  holy  and  venerable  images  according  to  the  wor 
ship  of  adoration,  which  I  pay  the  consubstantial  and  vivifying 
Trinity;  and  whoso  are  not  of  a  like  mind,  nor  glorify  (the 
sacred  images),  I  segregate  from  the  Holy  and  Apostolic 
Church  and  anathematize  " ;  whereas  the  original  had :  "  I 
accept  and  reverently  kiss  the  holy  and  venerable  images ;  but 
latreutical  worship  I  reserve  exclusively  for  the  supersubstan- 
tial  and  vivifying  Trinity." 

In  repudiation  of  the  doctrine  as  set  forth  in  the  faulty 
translation,  Charlemagne  sent  a  number  of  Capitula  to  Pope 
Hadrian,  pointing  out  how  the  Council  had  blundered  into  a 
most  lamentable  error.  The  Pope  finally  cleared  up  matters 
by  a  detailed  answer  to  the  Capitula,  in  which  he  says  that  the 
teaching  of  the  Council  is  in  perfect  conformity  with  the  doc 
trine  of  his  predecessor  and  with  his  own,  since  it  decrees  that 
images  should  be  venerated  by  kisses  and  salutations,  but  that 
divine  worship  should  be  paid  to  God  alone.19  And  therefore, 
he  adds,  did  we  receive  the  Council.  Thus  the  misunderstand 
ing  was  indeed  removed,  but  Charlemagne  and  his  Franks 

i»  Mansi,  13,  808 ;  P.  G.  98,  1291. 


488  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

refused  to  come  to  terms.  They  approved  of  the  use  of  images 
for  decorative  purposes,  and  also  for  instruction,  but  would 
have  nothing  to  do  with  their  veneration.  This  hostile  atti 
tude  continued  until  after  the  Eighth  General  Council  (869), 
which  approved  the  decision  of  Nicsea. 

Sometimes  the  Synod  of  Frankfort  (794)  is  also  adduced 
as  opposed  to  the  veneration  of  images,  but  this  is  a  mistake; 
for  the  assembled  bishops  simply  condemned  the  doctrine  con 
tained  in  the  erroneous  translation  sent  to  Charlemagne,  as 
appears  from  their  own  words :  "  The  question  was  also 
raised  concerning  a  recent  Greek  synod,  which  they  held  at 
Constantinople  in  regard  to  the  adoration  of  images,  and  in 
the  Acts  of  which  it  is  written  that  those  who  do  not  worship 
and  adore  the  images  of  the  saints,  as  they  worship  and  adore 
the  vivifying  Trinity,  should  be  adjudged  anathema."  20  This 
adoration  of  images  they  reject,  but  they  do  not  touch  the 
question  of  simple  veneration  as  defined  by  the  Council.  It 
may  be  added  that  the  synod  of  Constantinople,  here  men 
tioned,  is  the  same  as  that  of  Nicaea ;  the  confusion  of  names 
being  due  to  the  fact  that  the  last  session  was  held  at  Con 
stantinople. 

20Mansi,  13,  909. 


CHAPTER  XXXIII 

THE  FILIOQUE  CONTROVERSY:    SPANISH  ADOPTIONISM: 
THE  EIGHTH   GENERAL  COUNCIL1 

John  Damascene  (+  754)  and  Isidore  of  Seville  (+  636) 
are  usually  considered  as  the  last  of  the  Fathers.  With  them 
Patristic  theology  came  to  a  close.  Neither  of  them  con 
tributed  much  of  his  own  to  the  elucidation  of  theological 
questions,  but  both  did  good  service  in  gathering  together  what 
their  more  gifted  predecessors  had  worked  out  with  patient 
skill  during  the  ages  that  were  past.  Furthermore,  they  pre 
pared  the  way  for  a  new  theology,  that  was  to  take  its  rise 
some  three  centuries  later.  Hence  they  stand,  as  it  were,  at 
the  parting  of  the  ways  —  harking  back  to  the  Patristic  past 
and  foreshadowing  the  Scholastic  future. 

Yet  this  new  theology  was  slow  in  forming.  There  was  no 
particular  dearth  of  great  men,  who  under  more  favorable  cir 
cumstances  might  have  made  their  own  age  as  brilliant  as  any 
that  went  before  in  the  history  of  theological  development; 
but  the  confusion  and  disturbances  that  followed  the  irruption 
of  Northern  nations  into  the  Roman  Empire,  together  with 
the  ecclesiastical  dissensions  between  the  East  and  the  West, 
prevented  them  from  doing  more  than  to  preserve  the  precious 
heirloom  of  past  ages.  Hence  the  eighth,  the  ninth,  and  the 
tenth  centuries  present  little  that  is  of  real  value  to  the  History 
of  Dogmas.  We  may,  therefore,  conclude  this  first  volume 
with  a  few  remarks  on  the  last  phases  of  the  great  Trinitarian 
and  Chnstological  controversies,  as  they  appeared  in  the  Fili- 
oque  dispute  arid  Spanish  Adoptionism.  A  word  or  two  on 
the  Eighth  General  Council  seems  also  in  place. 

1  Cfr.  Hefele,  IV,  384-436,  2nd  Marion,  Histoire,  de  1'Eglise,  I, 
Germ.  Edit.  Tixeront,  H.  D.  Ill,  639^649;  Hergenroether,  Kirchenge- 
501-523.  Hergenroether,  Photius,  I ;  schichte,  II,  131-146. 

489 


490 


THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 


A  —  THE  FILIOQUE  CONTROVERSY 

Although  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son  did  not  become  a  matter  of  controversy  before 
the  middle  of  the  eighth  century,  still  it  had  given  rise  to  a 
diversity  of  opinions  some  time  before  that  date.  From  the 
end  of  the  fourth  century  forward,  two  opposite  views  gradu 
ally  developed,  one  of  which  became  peculiar  to  the  East  and 
the  other  to  the  West.  All  indeed  were  agreed  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  the  Spirit  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son;  also  that 
He  proceeded  from  the  Father  through  the  Son ;  but  how  was 
this  latter  term,  "  through  the  Son,"  to  be  understood  ?  It 
was  on  this  point  that  views  began  in  course  of  time  to  differ. 
Whilst  Eastern  theologians,  at  least  after  the  fifth  century, 
became  more  and  more  inclined  to  ascribe  all  causality  in  the 
procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  Father,  so  that  "  through 
the  Son  "  meant  little  more  to  them  than  identification  of  na 
ture  between  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  together  with 
priority  of  procession  or  generation  on  the  part  of  the  Son: 
those  of  the  West  placed  the  causality  of  the  Son  in  this  respect 
on  the  same  plane  with  that  of  the  Father,  so  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  conceived  by  them  to  proceed  equally  from  both 
as  from  one  principle  of  spiration.  In  this  there  was  obviously 
not  a  mere  question  of  terminology,  but  of  doctrinal  concepts 
as  well. 

However  this  difference  of  views  between  the  East  and 
West,  as  already  stated,  developed  only  in  course  of  time.  The 
fourth-century  Eastern  writers  use  expressions  that  may  be 
interpreted  either  way,  though  the  majority  are  undoubtedly  in 
favor  of  deriving  the  Holy  Spirit  immediately  from  the  Son. 
Thus  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  says  that  "  the  Father  gives  to  the 
Son,  and  the  Son  communicates  to  the  Holy  Spirit " ; 2  and 
Didymus,  commenting  on  John,  16,  13,  paraphrases  the  words 
of  Christ  concerning  the  mission  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  this 
manner :  "  For  He  shall  not  speak  of  Himself,  that  is,  with 
out  me  and  without  the  Father's  direction,  as  He  is  inseparable 
from  mine  and  the  Father's  will.  Because  He  is  not  of  Him- 

2  Cat.  16,  24. 


THE  FILIOQUE  CONTROVERSY  491 

self,  but  from  the  Father  and  from  me.  For  His  very  sub 
sistence  comes  to  Him  from  the  Father  and  from  me." 3 
Epiphanius  is  equally  clear :  "  Christ  is  held  to  be  of  the 
Father,  God  of  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  of  Christ,  or  of 
both,  as  Christ  says :  *  He  proceeds  from  the  Father/  and, 
'  He  shall  receive  of  me/  "  4  And  to  the  question,  why  is 
not  the  Spirit  also  the  Son  of  the  Father,  he  replies :  "  Who 
are  you  that  you  should  contradict  God?  For  if  He  calls  Him 
Son  who  is  of  Himself,  and  Him  the  Holy  Ghost  who  is  of 
both,"  is  not  that  sufficient?  5  "  Furthermore,  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  of  both,  Spirit  of  Spirit,  for  God  is  Spirit."  6  Athanasius 
usually  speaks  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  proceeding  immediately 
from  the  Son.  Thus :  "  The  Spirit  is  said  to  proceed  from 
the  Father,  because  He  flashes  forth  from  the  Logos,  who  is 
admitted  to  be  of  the  Father."  7  Basil  states  that  "  the  Son 
bears  the  same  relation  to  the  Father  as  the  Holy  Ghost  bears 
to  the  Son,"  8  although  in  another  place  he  says  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  comes  "  from  the  Father  through  the  Only-Begotten."  9 
Finally,  Chrysostom  interprets  the  expression  "  per  Filium  " 
to  have  in  this  connection  the  same  meaning  as  "ex  Filio  " : 
"If  the  term  'per  ipsum '  is  used,  it  is  for  no  other  reason 
than  to  prevent  that  any  one  should  suspect  the  Son  to  be 
unbegotten."  10 

Gregory  of  Nyssa,  on  the  other  hand,  was  later  on  adduced 
by  Greek  writers  as  authority  for  the  view  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  proceeds  from  the  Father  alone.  The  passage  usually 
pointed  to  runs  as  follows :  "  While  firmly  adhering  to  the 
identity  of  nature,  we  do  not  deny  the  distinction  between 
the  principle  and  what  proceeds  from  it.  We  find  this  dis 
tinction  between  them ;  we  believe  that  one  is  the  principle  and 
that  the  other  is  from  the  principle,  and  in  what  is  from  the 
principle  we  find  another  distinction.  For  the  one  is  from 
the  first  immediately,  the  other  only  mediately  and  through 
that  which  is  immediately  from  the  first,  so  that  the  character- 

8  De  Spir.  Sanct  34-  7  Epist.  I  ad  Scrap.  20. 

4  Ancorat.  67.  8  De  Spir.  Sanct.  43,  47. 

5  Ibid.  71.  »  Ibid.  47. 

6  Panar.  7.  10  Horn.  5  in  Joan.  2. 


492 


THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 


istic  note  of  Only-Begotten  belongs  undoubtedly  to  the  Son. 
On  the  other  hand  it  is  certain  that  the  Holy  Spirit  proceeds 
from  the  Father,  for  while  the  mediation  of  the  Son  preserves 
for  Him  the  character  of  Only-Begotten,  His  natural  relation 
to  the  Father  does  not  exclude  the  Holy  Spirit."  n 

If  this  be  taken  as  it  stands,  it  may,  of  course,  be  interpreted 
in  the  sense  that  the  Father  is  the  sole  principle  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  since  "  it  is  certain  that  the  Holy  Spirit  proceeds  from 
the  Father,"  and  since  "  one  is  the  principle,"  and  the  others 
are  from  the  principle.  But  if  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
Son  is  said  to  be  "  immediately  "  from  the  Father,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  "  only  mediately  "  and  through  the  Son,  there 
seems  to  be  also  solid  reason  for  the  opposite  interpretation; 
especially  if  it  be  recollected  that  according  to  the  statement 
of  Chrysostom,  cited  above,  "  through  the  Son  "  had  among 
the  Greeks  of  that  period  the  %same  significance  as  "  from  the 
Son."  Furthermore,  in  another  place  he  expresses  the  com 
mon  view  rather  clearly,  when  he  says  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
"  is  from  God  and  of  Christ,  as  it  is  written,  in  this  way  that 
He  does  not  share  either  with  the  Father  in  the  property  of 
not  proceeding,  or  with  the  Son  in  the  property  of  the  Only- 
Begotten."  12 

During  the  following  century  the  two  views  are  found 
existing  side  by  side  in  the  works  of  Eastern  writers,  but  in 
some  places  there  is  already  noticeable  a  growing  preference 
for  the  opinion  attributed  to  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  This  is 
especially  true  of  the  followers  of  the  Antiochene  school  of 
theology.  Thus  whilst  Cyril  of  Alexandria  clearly  teaches 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  "  is  in  the  Son,  and  from  the  Son,"  13 
that  He  is  the  Spirit  "  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son,  and  is 
substantially  from  both  " ; 14  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  seems  equally 
clear  in  advocating  the  contrary  view.  Replying  to  the  ninth 
anathematism  of  Cyril,  in  which  the  Holy  Ghost  is  said  to  be 
the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  says :  "  If  he  means  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  has  the  same  nature  as  the  Son  and  proceeds  from  the 

«  Ad  Alab.  versus  finem.  13  De  Trin.  Dial.  7- 

12  Adv.  Macedon.  2.  14  De  Adorat.  in  Spir.  et  Ver.  I, 

9- 


THE  FILIOQUE  CONTROVERSY  493 

Father,  we  shall  confess  the  same  and  receive  it  as  a  pious 
statement;  but  if  he  holds  that  the  Holy  Spirit  has  his  sub- 
sistance  from  the  Son  or  through  the  Son,  we  reject  it  as 
blasphemous  and  impious."  15  It  has  however  been  suggested 
that  Theodoret,  in  making  this  severe  stricture,  had  in  mind 
the  teaching  of  the  Macedonians,  according  to  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  to  be  regarded  as  a  creature  of  the  Son.  This  may 
be  so,  but  it  does  not  appear  very  probable.16  At  all  events, 
the  same  view,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  did  not  receive  His  exist 
ence  from  the  Son,  is  put  forth  by  the  author  of  a  symbol 
which  was  rejected  by  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  and  which  is 
usually  supposed  to  have  been  written  by  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suestia,  the  master  of  Theodoret.17 

Still  with  all  this,  the  older  and  common  teaching  continued 
to  hold  its  ground  in  the  East,  at  least  in  orthodox  circles. 
For  when  in  the  first  part  of  the  sixth  century,  Pope  Hormisdas 
stated  in  a  letter  to  the  Emperor  that  the  Holy  Spirit  "  pro 
ceeded  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  sub  una  substantia  dei- 
tatis"  18  the  expression  apparently  excited  no  comment.  But 
about  a  hundred  and  thirty  years  later,  when  Martin  I  used 
a  similar  expression  in  a  letter  to  the  Monothelites,  he  was 
immediately  accused  of  heterodoxy.  Abbot  Maximus  tried 
to  defend  him,  but  he  did  so  by  more  or  less  explaining  away 
the  obnoxious  expression.  The  Romans,  he  said,  when  using 
the  phrase  "  ex  Filio,"  did  not  mean  to  assert  that  the  Son 
was  really  the  cause  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  since  the  Father  alone 
is  properly  speaking  the  cause  of  the  other  two  persons;  but 
thereby  they  simply  wished  to  indicate  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  "  per  Filium,"  and  had  the  same  substance  as  the  Son.19 
He  states  his  own  view  by  saying  that  the  Holy  Ghost  "  pro 
ceeds  substantially  and  ineffably  from  the  Father  through  the 
Son."  20 

St.  John  Damascene  appears  to  have  taken  a  somewhat 
intermediate  position,  in  so  far  as  the  use  of  terms  comes  in 

15Mansi,  5,  124.  18Epist.  79  ad  Justin. 

16  Cfr.  Hergenroether,  Photius,  I,         19  P.  G.  91,  133,  136. 
686.  20  Ad  Thalass ;  P.  G.  90,  672. 

"Mansi,  4,  1347- 


494  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

question.  For  on  the  one  hand  he  states  repeatedly  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  cannot  be  said  to  proceed  from  the  Son,  but  must 
be  held  to  proceed  from  the  Father  through  the  Son;21  yet 
on  the  other  hand  he  calls  Him  the  Spirit  of  the  Son,  the 
image  of  the  Son,  and  says  that  He  is  communicated  by  the 
Son,22  and  therefore  in  some  way  necessarily  proceeding  from 
the  Son.  Hence  the  most  likely  inference  is  that  he  regarded 
the  Father  as  the  sole  cause  in  the  sense  that  He  alone  is  the 
principle  of  the  Trinity,  the  productive  activity  of  the  Son 
being  derived  from  the  Father.  This  would  in  effect  be  the 
same  view  as  that  taken  by  the  Latins,  only  it  is  expressed  in 
different  terms.  Nevertheless  it  is  especially  to  John  Damas 
cene  that  the  Greek  schismatics  appeal  as  an  authority  for  re 
jecting  the  Filioque  doctrine  of  the  Western  Church. 

Whilst  the  East  was  thus  gradually  drifting  away  from 
the  teaching  of  its  great  Fathers,  concerning  the  procession  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  the  West  placed 
that  doctrine  in  an  ever  clearer  light.  Tertullian  had  coined 
the  phrase,  "  a  Patre  per  Filium,"  but  he  added  almost  imme 
diately,  "  a  Deo  et  Filio,  sicut  tertius  a  radice  f ructus  a  f ru- 
tice  " ; 23  thus  obviously  ascribing  some  casuality  to  the  Son 
in  the  production  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  although  with  a  certain 
subordination  to  the  Father.  The  same  two  expressions,  "  a 
Patre  per  Filium,"  and  "  a  Patre  et  Filio/'  were  used  almost 
indiscriminately  by  subsequent  writers,  yet  so  as  to  make  it 
clear  that  they  looked  upon  the  Son  as  an  active  principle  along 
with  the  Father.  Thus  whilst  Hilary  terminates  his  prayer 
at  the  close  of  his  great  work  De  Trinitate  with  the  words, 
"  through  Thy  Holy  Spirit,  who  is  from  Thee  through  Thy 
Only-Begotten,"  24  in  the  body  of  the  work  he  states  quite 
plainly  that  the  Holy  Spirit  "must  be  held  to  be  from  the 
Father  and  the  Son."  25  And  commenting  on  the  words  of 
Christ  as  recorded  in  St.  John,  16,  15,  "He  (the  Paraclete) 
shall  receive  of  mine,"  he  says  that  to  receive  of  the  Son  is 
the  same  as  to  receive  of  the  Father ;  "  nee  differt  a  quo  accep- 

21  De  Fide   Orthod.   I,  8;   I,   12;          23  Adv.  Prax.  4,  8. 
Horn,  in  Sabb.  Sanct. ;  P.  G.  96,  605.          24  Op.  cit.  12,  57. 

22  De  Fide  Orthod.  I,  13;  I,  8.  25  Ibid.  29;  P.  L.  10,  69. 


THE  FILIOQUE  CONTROVERSY  495 

turn  sit,  quod  datum  a  Patre,  datum  referatur  a  Filio."  26 
Victorinus  also  puts  this  quite  clearly,  when  he  says :  "  The 
Holy  Spirit  is  from  the  Son,  as  the  Son  is  from  the  Father; 
and  similarly  the  Holy  Spirit  is  also  from  the  Father/' 27 
Ambrose  advances  the  same  view.  "  According  to  the  Sacred 
Scriptures,"  he  argues,  "  the  Holy  Spirit  is  neither  of  the 
Father  alone,  nor  of  the  Son  alone,  but  of  both."  28  And 
again :  "  The  Holy  Spirit  also,  since  He  proceeds  from  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  is  not  separated  from  the  Father,  is  not 
separated  from  the  Son."  29  Similar  expressions  are  used  by 
the  other  writers  of  this  period.  As  already  pointed  out  in 
a  previous  chapter,  it  was  St.  Augustine  who  formulated  the 
doctrine  in  exact  terms,  emphasizing  the  fact  that  the  Father 
and  the  Son  are  but  one  principle  of  spiration."  30  It  was  in 
this  form  that  the  doctrine  was  set  forth  by  subsequent  writers 
in  the  West. 

From  the  sixth  century  forward,  the  expression  "  Filioque," 
or  its  equivalent,  "  a  Patre  et  Filio,"  occurs  not  rarely  in  pro 
fessions  of  faith  as  embodying  the  common  teaching  of  the 
Church.  Perhaps  the  earliest  instance  is  that  of  the  Qui- 
cumque,  or  so-called  Athanasian  Symbol,  a  fifth-century 
Western  formula  which  became  very  popular  after  the  seventh 
century.  However  it  was  not  until  589,  after  the  Council  of 
Toledo,  that  an  attempt  was  made  to  introduce  the  Filioque 
clause  into  the  Liturgy.  It  was  this  that  finally  occasioned  the 
controversy  in  the  West,  and  incidentally  accentuated  the  al 
ready  existing  differences  between  the  Latin  and  the  Greek 
Church. 

The  Council  of  Toledo,  just  referred  to,  was  held  on  the 
occasion  of  the  solemn  abjuration  of  Arianism  by  the  Gothic 
king  Reccared  and  his  subjects.  The  king  first  recited  a  pro 
fession  of  faith  composed  by  himself,  and  then  added  the 
Nicene  and  Constantinopolitan  Creeds,  inserting  into  the  lat 
ter  the  clause :  "  Credimus  et  in  Spiritum  Sanctum  dominum 
et  vivificantem,  ex  Patre  et  Filio  procedentem."  The  assem- 

26  De  Trin.  7,  20.  29  Ibid. 

27  Adv.  Arium,  i,  13.  30  De  Trin.  15,  29. 

28  De  Spir.  Sanct.  I,  n. 


496  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

bled  bishops  approved  the  addition,  "  et  Filio,"  and  at  the 
instance  of  the  king  ordered  the  Creed  thus  completed  to  be 
recited  during  Mass,  immediately  before  the  Pater  Noster,  as 
was  the  practice  among  the  Greeks.31 

About  a  century  later  the  addition  was  also  admitted  into 
the  Gallican  liturgy,  but  was  assigned  its  place  in  the  preface. 
It  appeared  about  the  same  time  in  England,  closing  the  synodal 
letter  of  the  council  of  Heathfield,  held  in  68o.32  This 
council  was  presided  over  by  Theodore  of  Canterbury,  who 
had  formerly  been  a  monk  at  Tarsus  in  Cilicia,  and  was  there 
fore  of  Eastern  origin  and  training. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  eighth  century,  the  Greek  custom 
of  reciting  the  Creed  during  Mass  had  also  been  established 
in  France,  and  in  the  Creed  thus  recited  the  Spanish  addition 
was  inserted.  A  few  years  later,  Paulinus  of  Aquileia  intro 
duced  the  recitation  of  the  amended  Creed  into  the  churches 
of  Upper  Italy,  "  on  account  of  those  who  say  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  only  of  the  Father  and  proceeds  from  the  Father 
alone."  33  Who  these  persons  were,  Paulinus  does  not  state, 
but  the  inference  is  that  he  alluded  to  the  Greeks.  They  were 
also  attacked  by  Charlemagne  in  a  letter  to  Pope  Hadrian. 
Referring  to  a  profession  of  faith  read  by  the  Patriarch  Tara- 
sius  at  the  Seventh  General  Council,  he  says  that  Tarasius  does 
not  think  rightly  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  as  much  as  he  declares 
him  to  proceed,  not  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  according  to 
the  Nicene  Symbol,  but  from  the  Father  through  the  Son.34 
Of  course,  the  Nicene  Symbol  here  referred  to  is  the  amended 
form  issued  by  the  Council  of  Toledo. 

Meanwhile  trouble  had  arisen  in  Palestine,  where  a  colony 
of  Latin  monks  established  at  Bethlehem  chanted  the  Creed 
at  Mass  with  the  addition  of  the  Filioque.  When  the  Greeks 
heard  of  this  they  treated  them  as  heretics,  and  threatened  to 
expel  them  unless  they  stopped  the  innovation.  The  monks 
thereupon  appealed  to  Leo  III,  asking  for  instruction  on  the 
matter  and  pleading  as  an  excuse  for  their  conduct  the  pre 
cedent  established  by  Charles  in  his  own  royal  chapel.  In 

31  Mansi,  9,  981.  83  P.  L.  99,  283,  293. 

32  P.  L.  95,   199.  84  Ibid.  87,  1220. 


THE  FILIOQUE  CONTROVERSY  497 

answer  the  Pope  sent  them  a  profession  of  faith,  addressed 
also  to  the  whole  Eastern  Church,  in  which  he  affirmed  the 
procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
without,  however,  pressing  the  point.35  He  also  apprised 
Charles  of  the  occurrence,  who  then  commissioned  Theodul- 
phus  of  Orleans  to  write  a  treatise  on  the  Holy  Spirit.  This 
treatise,  in  which  the  Filioque  is  defended,  was  approved  by 
the  Synod  of  Aix-la-Chapelle  in  809. 

After  the  Synod  Charles  sent  the  bishop  of  Worms  and  the 
abbots  of  Corbie  and  Saint  Mihiel  to  the  Pope,  in  order  to 
obtain  from  him  a  formal  authorization  for  the  chanting  of 
the  Creed  with  the  addition  of  the  Filioque.  They  presented 
the  Acts  of  the  synod,  together  with  a  treatise  on  the  Holy 
Ghost  written  by  the  abbot  Smaragdus.  The  Pope  received 
them  graciously,  and  fully  approved  of  the  doctrine,  but  he 
refused  to  give  the  petitioned  authorization.  He  added,  how 
ever,  that  as  the  practice  had  already  been  introduced  in  France, 
he  could  not  very  well  do  anything  else  than  let  things  go 
their  way.36  His  immediate  successors  took  the  same  stand, 
tolerating  the  recitation  of  the  Creed  during  Mass  in  places 
where  the  practice  had  been  introduced,  but  refusing  to  give 
their  official  approbation.  Finally,  however,  in  1014,  Bene 
dict  VIII,  at  the  instance  of  St.  Henry  of  Germany,  gave  his 
formal  consent  and  thereby  the  Spanish  custom  won  the  day.37 

The  real  reason  why  the  different  Popes,  though  strongly 
approving  the  doctrine,  refused  to  give  any  official  recognition 
to  the  insertion  of  the  Filioque  into  the  Creed,  must  be  looked 
for  in  the  hostile  attitude  of  the  Eastern  Church.  As  already 
pointed  out,  the  theologians  of  the  East  gradually  departed 
from  the  more  common  teaching  of  the  fourth-century  Fathers, 
and  by  the  time  the  controversy  was  started  in  the  West,  they 
were  inclined  to  look  upon  the  Filioque  clause  as  heretical. 
Hence  as  there  were  not  wanting  strong  indications  that  the 
Greek  Church  was  wavering  in  its  allegiance  and  submission 
to  Rome,  the  Popes  deemed  it  prudent  to  abstain  from  adding 
anything  to  the  accepted  Creed.  Events  that  happened  a  few 

85  Ibid.  102,  1030.  87  Ibid.  142,  1060,  1061. 

36  Ibid.  102,  1071. 


498  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

decades  later  showed  the  wisdom  of  their  ways,  although  that 
wisdom  was  not  sufficient  to  prevent  the  final  schism. 

B  —  SPANISH  ADOPTIONISM 

At  the  time  when  this  heresy  first  appeared,  Spain  was  politi 
cally  divided  into  three  parts.  In  the  center  and  the  south 
was  the  kingdom  of  the  Moors  with  Cordova  as  its  capital. 
In  the  northwest  lay  the  small  native  kingdom  of  Oviedo. 
In  the  northeast  extended  the  duchies  of  Navarre  and  Gothia, 
belonging  to  the  empire  of  Charlemagne.  It  was  in  the  first 
of  these  three  divisions,  the  kingdom  of  the  Moors,  that  the 
trouble  originated.  The  author  was  Elipandus,  then  Arch 
bishop  of  Toledo,  a  haughty  old  man  and  noted  for  his  violent 
temper.  In  a  letter  addressed  to  a  certain  bishop  Migetius, 
who  seems  to  have  taught  that  God  the  Father  had  become 
incarnate  in  David,  the  Son  in  the  man  Jesus,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  the  Apostle  Paul,  he  wrote :  "  We  do  not  believe 
that  the  Son,  whom  you  assert  to  be  equal  to  the  Father  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,  is  He  who  in  these  latter  times  was  made  of 
the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh;  but  He  rather  who 
was  born  of  the  Father  before  the  beginning  of  time,  and  who, 
before  assuming  flesh,  said  through  the  Prophet :  Before  the 
hills  were  was  I  brought  forth."  38 

Somewhat  later,  Elipandus  wrote  concerning  this  matter  to 
Felix,  bishop  of  Urgel  in  Gothia,  a  young  but  learned  prelate. 
Felix  was  of  the  same  mind,  and  so  the  two  began  to  spread 
their  views  far  and  wide,  through  Languedoc,  Galitia,  and  the 
Asturias.  Many  bishops  joined  them,  asserting  indeed  that 
the  Son  as  Word  was  consubstantial  with  the  Father,  and  that 
under  this  aspect  He  was  God's  natural  Son;  but  they  main 
tained  at  the  same  time  that  Christ's  human  nature,  though 
truly  assumed  by  the  Word  in  the  unity  of  person,  did  not 
share  in  this  divine  sonship;  that  Christ  as  man,  therefore, 
must  be  regarded  as  God's  adopted  son.  The  Saviour's  natu 
ral  sonship  they  admitted  quite  rightly  to  be  founded  on  His 

38  Epist.  ad  Miget.  7;  P.  L.  96,  863;  cfr.  Hefele,  op.  cit.  628  sqq. 


SPANISH  ADOPTIONISM  499 

eternal  generation,  but  His  adopted  sonship  they  based  on 
the  communication  of  grace.39 

It  seems,  however,  that  this  theory  was  fully  developed  only 
by  Felix,  who  took  adoption  in  a  juridical  rather  than  in  a 
physical  sense.  According  to  him  it  was  not  the  hypostatic 
union,  but  sanctifying  grace  from  which  the  adoption  resulted. 
In  this  respect,  therefore,  Christ  as  man  is  in  the  same  category 
with  other  just  men,  except  that  He  received  sanctifying  grace 
in  a  higher  degree.  As  man  He  is  truly  a  servant,  and  the 
Word  is  the  master  of  that  servant.  As  man  He  did  not  have 
perfection  of  knowledge,  was  not  impeccable,  had  need  of 
regeneration,  and  in  general  resembled  those  who  are  only  in 
a  wider  sense  sons  of  God.  Sonship,  according  to  Felix  and 
his  followers,  is  predicated  not  of  the  person,  but  of  nature; 
and  hence,  although  there  is  only  one  person  in  Christ,  still 
there  are  two  sons.40 

In  all  this  there  is  obviously  a  recrudescence  of  Nestorianism, 
notwithstanding  the  assertion  that  Christ  is  only  one  person. 
It  is  commonly  supposed  that  these  heterodox  ideas  had  been 
derived  from  the  works  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  and  of 
other  Eastern  writers  of  the  same  school,  which  the  Mussul- 
men  had  adapted  to  their  own  views  and  brought  with  them 
into  Spain. 

As  these  views  were  directly  opposed  to  the  teaching  of  the 
Fathers,  and  also  to  the  definitions  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon, 
they  were  immediately  attacked  by  many  orthodox  writers  in 
Spain  and  abroad.  The  first  to  raise  their  voices  in  protest 
were  Heterius,  bishop  of  Osma,  and  Beatus,  abbot  of  Libana 
in  the  Asturias.  A  letter  of  the  two  addressed  to  Elipandus 
is  still  extant.  Paulinus  of  Aquileia,  Alcuin,  Agobard,  and 
many  others  entered  the  lists  in  defense  of  the  faith.  Pope 
Hadrian  also  addressed  a  strong  letter  to  the  bishops  of  Spain, 
designating  the  teaching  of  Elipandus  and  Felix  as  a  blas 
phemy  which  no  heresiarch  had  ever  dared  to  utter,  save  only 
the  perfidious  Nestorius.41  All  this,  however,  had  little  effect. 

39Apud  Agobard.  Lib.  adv.  Felic,          40  Alcuin,  Adv.  Felic.  2,  14;  3,  3; 
16,  15 ;  Symbol.  Fid.  Elip. ;  P.  L.  96,      6,  3,  4. 
917;  cfr.  Tixeront,  op.  cit.  512,  513.          **  P.  L.  98,  374. 


500  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

Then  Charlemagne  intervened  and  cited  Felix  before  a  synod 
at  Ratisbon.  He  appeared,  and  although  his  teaching,  as  ex 
plained  by  himself,  was  condemned,  he  was  allowed  to  return 
to  his  own  diocese,  after  he  had  made  a  retractation  of  his 
errors.42  But  in  a  short  time  he  relapsed,  and  began  anew  to 
spread  his  heterodox  views.  He  retracted  a  second  time  be 
fore  the  Synod  of  Aix-la-Chapelle,  in  799-43  Then  he  was 
given  into  the  custody  of  Leidrad,  bishop  of  Lyons  in  France, 
and  for  the  rest  of  his  days  he  conformed  in  everything  to 
the  teaching  of  the  Church,  even  going  so  far  as  to  compose 
a  work  in  refutation  of  the  errors  of  his  former  associates. 
However  after  his  death  a  document  was  found  among  his 
writings  in  which  he  retracted  his  retractation,  and  so  it  ap 
pears  that  his  conversion  was  only  a  matter  of  expediency, 
or  that  he  relapsed  into  his  former  errors.  Elipandus,  pro 
tected  by  the  Moors,  persisted  in  his  heterodox  views  till  death. 
With  his  passing  the  heresy  gradually  died  out,  although  traces 
of  it  were  found  as  late  as  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century. 

In  passing  it  may  be  mentioned  that  the  Adoptionists,  and 
more  especially  their  leader  Felix,  endeavored  to  enforce  their 
teaching  by  arguments  drawn  from  a  variety  of  sources. 
Holy  Scripture,  the  works  of  the  Fathers,  and  the  very  defini 
tions  of  Councils  were  laid  under  contribution.  According  to 
Scripture  Christ  is  both  the  Son  of  God  and  the  son  of  David ; 
yet  this,  it  was  contended,  is  intelligible  only  on  the  assump 
tion  that  as  man  He  was  the  son  of  David  by  generation  and 
the  Son  of  God  by  adoption.  Patristic  texts,  especially  those 
drawn  from  the  works  of  Augustine,  making  Christ  as  man 
the  object  of  gratuitous  predestination,  lead  to  the  same  con 
clusion.  And  so,  too,  do  the  definitions  of  Councils  to  the 
effect  that  there  are  two  distinct  natures  in  Christ ;  for  where 
there  are  two  natures  there  must  be  two  sons.  However  their 
opponents  made  short  work  of  these  and  similar  arguments, 
as  may  be  gathered  from  such  of  their  works  as  are  still 
extant.44  And  in  a  discussion  with  Alcuin,  which  lasted  for 

*2  Mansi,  12,  1031.  44  Cfr.  Alcuin  and  Paulinus,  P.  L. 

43  Ibid.  13,  1035-1040.  101,  87-230;  99,  243-468;  96,  883. 


THE  EIGHTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL 


501 


several  days,  Felix  confessed  himself  completely  worsted  by 
his  opponent.45 

Of  the  many  synods  that  were  convened  to  extirpate  Adop- 
tionism,  that  of  Frankfort  on  the  Main,  held  in  794,  has 
obtained  the  greatest  celebrity.  It  was  presided  over  by  the 
Papal  legates,  and  defined  that  in  virtue  of  the  hypostatic 
union  there  is  in  Christ  only  one  Son  of  God,  not  an  adopted 
son,  but  the  Son  of  God  by  nature.  About  two  years  later 
this  was  approved  by  Hadrian  I,  and  again  by  Leo  III,  in  799, 
in  a  council  held  at  Rome.46 

Thus  the  last  Christological  error  was  authoritatively  con 
demned.  It  was  the  condemnation  of  this  error  that  completed 
the  Church's  teaching  on  the  person  of  Christ.  Although  the 
God-Man's  human  soul  was  perfected  by  sanctifying  grace, 
and  although  sanctifying  grace  ordinarily  results  in  divine 
adoption,  nevertheless,  because  in  Him  the  divine  and  the 
human  are  hypostatically  united,  such  an  adoption  is  impos 
sible  in  His  case.  The  proper  object  of  adoption  is  not  nature 
as  such,  but  nature  perfected  by  its  own  personality;  in  this 
case,  therefore,  it  would  be  a  human  person  extraneous  to 
the  Godhead,  a  supposition  that  evidently  divides  Christ. 
Hence  the  definition  of  Frankfort  only  stated  explicitly  what 
was  already  implicitly  contained  in  the  definition  of  Ephesus. 
Christ  is  one  person,  and  therefore  necessarily  one  Son  of 
God. 

C  —  THE  EIGHTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL 

This  Council  was,  in  the  first  instance,  not  convoked  to  settle 
any  doctrinal  dispute,  but  rather  to  bring  some  sort  of  order 
out  of  the  chaos  that  had  resulted  from  the  intrusion  of  Photius 
into  the  patriarchal  see  of  Constantinople.  Ignatius,  the  law 
ful  patriarch,  had  been  deposed  by  Michael  the  Drunkard,  on 
account  of  his  uncompromising  stand  against  the  scandalous 
proceedings  at  the  imperial  court.  After  his  deposition  the 
government  offered  the  see  to  Photius,  the  secretary  of  state 
and  captain  of  the  life  guard.  As  he  was  still  a  layman,  he 

45Alcuin,   Epist.   117;   cfr.   P.  L.         46  Mansi,  13,  1031,  1032. 
96,  883;  Mansi,  13,  1035  sqq. 


502 


THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 


thereupon  hurriedly  received  all  the  orders,  and  on  Christmas 
day,  857,  was  consecrated  patriarch  by  Gregory  Asbestas,  the 
excommunicated  metropolitan  of  Syracuse  in  Sicily.  Ignatius 
was  thrust  into  prison,  but  although  shamefully  abused,  he 
could  not  be  induced  to  resign  his  see. 

Meanwhile  Photius,  the  Emperor,  and  the  Caesar  Bardas, 
who  was  the  ruling  power  behind  the  throne,  tried  to  have 
these  proceedings  ratified  by  Rome ;  but  unfortunately  for  their 
well  laid  plans,  the  Roman  See  was  then  occupied  by  a  man 
whom  contemporary  writers  very  appropriately  styled  "  a  sec 
ond  Elias."  This  was  Nicholas  I.  Although  his  own  legates, 
misinformed  perhaps  of  the  true  state  of  things,  confirmed  all 
that  had  been  done,  he  himself  did  not  rest  until  he  had  found 
out  the  whole  truth,  and  then  without  ceremony  deposed  the 
intruder.  The  result  was  a  schism,  which  lasted  till  867,  when 
Michael  the  Drunkard  was  murdered,  and  his  successor,  Basil 
I,  sent  Photius  into  banishment  and  recalled  Ignatius.  Almost 
the  first  act  of  the  reinstated  patriarch  was  to  ask  for  a  coun 
cil,  so  that  all  the  previous  difficulties  might  be  authoritatively 
settled.  In  this  he  was  seconded  by  Basil,  who  forthwith  des 
patched  letters  and  envoys  to  Rome,  for  the  purpose  of  inducing 
the  Pope  to  accede  to  the  patriarch's  request. 

Whilst  these  changes  were  going  on,  Pope  Nicholas  died, 
and  was  succeeded  by  Hadrian  II,  a  man  of  almost  equal  ability 
and  strength  of  character.  He  assembled  a  provincial  synod 
at  Rome,  in  which  Photius  was  condemned  for  having  at 
tempted  to  excommunicate  Pope  Nicholas.  On  the  same  occa 
sion  Papal  legates  for  the  contemplated  general  council  were 
appointed.  The  men  chosen  were  Donatus,  bishop  of  Ostia, 
Stephen,  bishop  of  Nepi,  and  a  deacon,  Marinus  by  name. 
They  arrived  at  Constantinople  during  the  month  of  Sep 
tember,  869,  and  the  Council  opened  in  the  Hagia  Sophia  on 
October  the  fifth.  The  attendance  was  very  small,  only  192 
bishops,  including  the  patriarchs,  were  present.  The  Papal 
legates  presided;  next  to  them  sat  Ignatius,  then  the  legates 
of  the  Patriarchs  of  Antioch  and  Jerusalem.  The  representa 
tives  from  Alexandria  did  not  arrive  until  the  ninth  session. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  first  session  the  legates  were  asked 


THE  EIGHTH  GENERAL  COUNCIL  503 

to  show  their  credentials  from  the  Pope,  so  as  to  prevent  a 
recurrence  of  the  trouble  caused  by  the  legates  of  Nicholas  I ; 
and  when  this  was  complied  with,  all  the  bishops  and  patriarchs 
present  signed  the  formula  of  Hormisdas,  which  clearly  states 
the  Primacy  of  the  Pope.  In  the  next  session  penances  were 
imposed  upon  the  repentant  bishops  who  had  followed  Photius 
in  his  schism.  Photius  himself,  however,  who  was  summoned 
during  the  fifth  session,  refused  to  give  any  satisfaction,  and 
in  consequence  he  was  excommunicated  anew  by  the  Council.47 

One  of  the  many  charges  which  Photius  had  brought  against 
the  Church  of  Rome,  and  by  which  he  endeavored  to  justify 
his  schism,  was  the  doctrine  involved  in  the  Filioque  clause. 
However  the  Council  does  not  seem  to  have  taken  any  notice 
of  it;  at  least  there  is  nothing  in  the  records  that  points  to 
a  discussion  of  the  matter.  Possibly  it  was  not  considered  a 
safe  topic  to  bring  up  under  existing  conditions.  Only  two 
points  were  touched  upon  that  are  of  any  doctrinal  importance. 
The  first  regards  the  unity  of  the  human  soul,  and  the  second 
is  a  reaffirmation  of  the  lawfulness  of  venerating  sacred  images. 
Both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament,  it  is  stated  in  the 
eleventh  canon,  teach  that  man  has  only  one  rational  soul,  and 
the  same  is  also  held  by  the  Fathers  and  teachers  of  the  Church. 
However  whether  this  definition  formally  implies  the  identity 
of  the  vegetative  and  sensitive  principle  with  the  rational  soul, 
does  not  appear  from  the  wording  of  the  canon ;  nor  can  this 
be  determined  to  a  certainty  from  anything  we  know  about  the 
purpose  of  the  definition.  Hence,  because  of  this  uncertainty, 
the  definition  loses  much  of  its  value  for  dogmatic  purposes. 

Another  point  of  interest,  although  only  historically  so,  is 
the  implicit  confirmation  of  the  pretensions  of  Constantinople 
to  the  first  place  in  the  order  of  dignity  after  the  see  of  Rome. 
If  the  Anastasian  recension  is  to  be  trusted,  the  claim  seems 
to  have  been  allowed  as  a  fact  that  could  no  longer  be  changed. 

The  tenth  and  last  session  of  the  Council  was  held  on  Febru 
ary  28,  870.  Then  the  canons  were  read  and  approved  by 
all  the  bishops  present.  The  Acts  of  the  Council  were  sol- 

47  Cfr.  Mansi,  16,  308-409. 


504  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

emnly  confirmed  by  Pope  Hadrian  II,  and  the  Council  has  ever 
since  been  regarded  as  ecumenical,  although  the  Photian  party 
refused  to  acknowledge  its  authority.  The  peace  thus  reestab 
lished  between  the  East  and  the  West  lasted  only  for  about 
ten  years,  but  it  is  well  to  notice  that  the  last  General  Council 
of  the  Church,  in  which  both  of  these  great  divisions  of  Chris 
tendom  participated,  explicitly  acknowledged  the  Primacy  of 
Rome,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  attending  bishops  were 
nearly  all  from  the  East. 

CONCLUSION 

Leaving  aside  now  the  advance  made  along  the  various 
lines  of  theological  thought  during  the  second  and  third  cen 
turies,  as  a  brief  summary  of  that  has  already  been  given, 
the  following  may  be  put  down  as  the  achieved  results  of  five 
hundred  years  of  doctrinal  development. 

In  the  East,  Christian  thought  was  at  first  almost  exclusively 
occupied  with  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Holy  Trinity. 
In  opposition  to  the  denial  of  Arius  the  Council  of  Nicaea  de 
fined  the  true  divinity  of  the  Son,  but  omitted,  as  then  and 
there  uncalled  for,  a  like  definition  in  reference  to  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  Arian  controversy  during  the  next  fifty  years  was 
concerned  primarily  with  the  appositeness  of  the  terms  used  in 
the  Nicene  definition,  but  secondarily  it  involved  also  doctrinal 
differences,  as  many  of  the  dissenting  bishops  held  Subordina- 
tionist  views  regarding  the  divinity  of  the  Son.  These  dif 
ferences  were  gradually  eliminated  by  the  patient  labors  of 
the  great  champions  of  orthodoxy  during  the  fourth  cen 
tury. 

The  rise  of  Macedonianism  towards  the  end  of  the  Arian 
controversy,  and  the  dangers  to  the  Trinitarian  faith  connected 
therewith,  called  for  an  explicit  definition  of  the  divinity  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  which  was  in  due  time  issued  by  the  Second 
General  Council,  held  at  Constantinople  in  381.  This  com 
pleted  the  Church's  teaching  on  the  Blessed  Trinity,  at  least 
in  its  most  fundamental  aspect  —  one  God,  three  divine  per 
sons;  numerically  one  divine  nature,  common  by  identity  to 


CONCLUSION  505 

Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  The  same  Council  also  defined 
the  perfect  humanity  of  Christ,  in  so  far  at  least  as  it  con 
demned  the  teaching  of  Apollinaris,  who  held  that  Christ  as 
man  had  no  rational  human  soul. 

This  condemnation  of  Apollinarianism  did  not  give  a  final 
solution  of  the  Christological  problem,  which  began  to  attract 
the  attention  of  theologians  towards  the  end  of  the  fourth 
century.  The  traditional  teaching  of  the  Church  had  always 
clearly  maintained  these  three  points:  Christ  is  God,  Christ 
is  man,  Christ  is  one.  Hence  the  question :  How  can  Christ 
be  one,  if  He  is  both  God  and  man?  That  question  still  re 
mained  to  be  solved.  Nestorius  tried  to  solve  it  by  having 
recourse  to  a  moral  union,  thus  breaking  up  the  unity  of  per 
son.  After  a  somewhat  protracted  discussion  between  him 
and  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  his  view  was  rejected  as  heretical 
by  the  Council  of  Ephesus  in  431.  As  instructed  by  Pope 
Celestine,  the  Council  defined  that  the  divine  and  the  human 
nature  in  Christ  are  so  united  as  to  result  in  one  person, 
the  person  of  the  Word.  Along  with  this  was  also  defined 
the  Divine  Motherhood  of  Mary,  she  being  declared  to  be 
truly  Theotokos,  truly  the  Mother  of  God. 

This  definition  of  the  unity  of  person  in  Christ,  although 
it  sufficiently  safeguarded  the  distinction  of  natures,  neverthe 
less  emboldened  the  followers  of  Cyril  to  emphasize  the  union 
to  such  an  extent  as  to  speak  of  a  physical  confusion  or 
mingling  of  the  two  elements  in  Christ.  To  counteract  this 
extreme  view,  championed  especially  by  Eutyches,  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon,  in  451,  as  directed  by  Pope  Leo,  defined  the 
integrity  and  distinction  of  the  natures,  pointing  out  that  the 
union  between  them  is  hypostatic. 

This  should  have  been  a  sufficient  solution  of  the  Christo 
logical  problem,  but  it  was  not.  Sergius  of  Constantinople 
revived  Eutychianism  in  another  form,  maintaining  that  the 
human  will  in  Christ  was  so  subordinated  to  the  divine  as  to 
be  deprived  of  its  own  proper  activity.  Against  him  and  his 
many  followers  the  Sixth  General  Council,  held  at  Constanti 
nople  in  68 1,  defined,  in  accordance  with  instructions  received 
from  Pope  Agatho,  that,  as  there  are  two  perfect  natures  in 


506  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

Christ,  so  are  there  also  two  perfect  wills  and  two  distinct 
operations,  the  one  human  and  the  other  divine. 

With  this  definition  the  Christological  contentions  in  the 
East  came  to  a  close,  but  they  were  revived  about  a  hundred 
years  later  in  the  West,  when  some  Spanish  bishops  contended 
that  Christ  as  man  was  only  the  adopted  son  of  God.  The 
Council  of  Frankfort,  approved  by  Pope  Hadrian  I,  condemned 
this  teaching  as  heretical,  in  794,  and  thereby  put  the  finishing 
touch  to  the  Church's  doctrine  on  the  person  of  Christ.  It 
was  also  in  the  West  that  the  Trinitarian  problem  received  its 
final  solution,  in  as  much  as  the  doctrine  concerning  the  pro 
cession  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  Father  and  the  Son  was 
there  inserted  in  the  Creed  and  thus  became  an  article  of  the 
faith. 

It  must  be  noted  that  in  the  development  of  these  funda 
mental  doctrines,  which,  with  the  two  minor  exceptions  just 
mentioned,  were  discussed  almost  exclusively  in  the  East,  it 
was  invariably  the  West,  speaking  through  the  Pope,  that 
determined  the  final  decision.  The  East  could  and  did  raise 
many  problems,  but  it  was  only  Rome  that  was  able  to  provide 
a  satisfactory  solution. 

Whilst  the  East  was  thus  occupied  with  questions  touching 
the  Blessed  Trinity  and  the  Incarnation,  the  West  turned  its 
attention  to  the  eminently  practical  consideration  of  man's 
condition  here  on  earth  and  his  relation  to  God.  The  natural 
ism  of  Pelagius  met  with  strong  opposition  from  St.  Augus 
tine,  whose  teaching  on  original  sin  and  the  necessity  of  divine 
grace  was,  in  part  at  least,  adopted  by  the  Church  and  sanc 
tioned  by  her  for  all  times.  On  the  other  hand,  his  perhaps 
somewhat  extreme  views  on  the  total  depravity  of  sin-stained 
nature  and  on  predestination  found  a  counter-poise  in  the 
writings  of  the  Semi-Pelagians,  whose  aberrations  on  the  suf 
ficiency  of  the  natural  free  will  for  the  beginning  of  faith 
and  salutary  works  were  indeed  condemned  by  the  Church,  yet 
they  helped  to  bring  out  the  true  teaching  on  man's  present 
condition,  as  formulated  by  the  second  Council  of  Orange  in 

9- 

In  opposition  to  the  Donatists,  St.  Augustine  also  strongly 


CONCLUSION  507 

defended  the  traditional  views  on  the  Church  and  her  sacra 
ments,  clarifying  concepts  which  had  till  then  been  somewhat 
hazy,  and  formulating  ecclesiological  and  sacramentary  teach 
ing  with  a  precision  that  remained  unsurpassed  for  many  cen 
turies.  The  nature  of  the  sacraments,  the  conditions  required 
for  their  validity,  the  sacramental  character,  were  some  of 
the  chief  points  to  which  he  devoted  his  attention  in  course 
of  these  controversies.  Aside  from  this,  he  likewise  con 
tributed  very  much  to  the  development  of  eschatological  teach 
ing,  correcting  some  of  the  views  of  his  predecessors,  and 
developing  the  doctrine  to  such  an  extent  that  it  has  continued 
practically  in  the  same  condition  till  the  present  time. 

Besides  these  particular  doctrines,  which,  owing  mostly  to 
heretical  vagaries,  were  more  fully  evolved,  considerable  de 
velopment  took  place  along  nearly  every  line  of  theological 
thought.  The  Real  Presence,  Transubstantiation,  the  sacri 
ficial  character  of  the  Mass,  the  efficacy  of  the  Holy  Sacrifice 
for  the  living  and  the  dead,  were  by  the  end  of  the  seventh 
century  as  clearly  understood  and  as  definitely  taught  as  they 
are  to-day.  Penance,  too,  from  the  sixth  century  forward, 
appeared  under  its  present  form,  whilst  during  the  preceding 
centuries  it  had  retained  much  of  its  primitive  character.  The 
same  must  be  said  about  matrimony,  both  as  regards  canonical 
impediments  and  indissolubility,  especially  in  the  West.  In 
the  fifth  century  extreme  unction  appears  as  a  well  established 
religious  rite,  and  a  little  later  is  often  referred  to  in  the 
legislation  of  bishops  and  provincial  synods.  The  doctrine  of 
purgatory  was  already  definitely  formulated  by  St.  Augustine, 
and  has  received  hardly  any  further  development  up  to  the 
present  time. 

A  similar  statement  applies  to  the  veneration  of  saints, 
which  since  the  fourth  century  included  virgins  and  confessors 
as  well  as  martyrs.  The  veneration  of  images  was  of  slower 
growth,  but  by  the  end  of  the  seventh  century  it  had  become 
practically  universal.  Its  lawfulness  was  doctrinally  defined 
by  the  Seventh  General  Council  in  787.  Devotion  to  the 
Mother  of  God,  which  had  indeed  been  in  favor  from  the  first, 
became  more  intense  after  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  and  by  the 


5o8  THE  END  OF  THE  PATRISTIC  AGE 

ninth  century  had  given  rise  to  a  considerable  number  of 
feasts,  among  which  was  that  of  the  Immaculate  Conception, 
although  it  was  then  not  yet  understood  in  precisely  the  same 
sense  as  we  understand  it  to-day. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  remark  that  in  all  this  progress 
and  development  the  Church  was  ever  conscious  of  being 
guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  She  saw  the  mustard  seed  of 
divine  truth  grow  up  into  a  great  tree,  but  she  was  perfectly 
aware  that  in  all  its  growth  there  was  no  change  in  kind.  In 
root  and  trunk  and  branches,  it  ever  was  and  still  remained 
the  self -same  tree. 


INDEX 


Abercius,  Inscription  of:  refers  to 
baptism,  the  Eucharist,  the  uni 
versality  of  the  Church,  and  pray 
ers  for  the  dead,  135,  136. 

Acacius  of  Caesarea:  head  of  the 
Acacian  heretics,  245. 

Acacius  of  Constantinople:  author 
of  the  Acacian  schism,  413. 

Acemeti,  monks:  attack  the  for 
mula,  "unus  ex  Trinitate  cruci- 
fixus  est/^414. 

Adam,  primitive  condition  and  fall 
of:  teaching  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  23;  of  the  Apologists,  129; 
Irenseus,  145,  304;  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  191 ;  the  4th  century 
writers,  302-306;  Augustine,  307, 
372,  373-  Harnack's  view,  303. 

Adamantius :  his  teaching  on  the 
Trinity,  214;  the  Church,  214. 

Adoptionism :  in  Hermas,  75 ;  of 
the  Monarchism  heretics,  153- 
155;  Paul  of  Samosata,  155; 
Spanish  Adoptionism,  498-501. 

Aerius:  denies  the  efficacy  of  suf 
frages  for  the  dead,  454. 

Agatha,  Pope :  condemns  the  Mono- 
thelite  heresy,  428,  429;  his  letter 
to  the  6th  General  Council,  429; 
is  acclaimed  by  the  Council,  430. 

Alcuin:  opposes  Spanish  Adoption 
ism,  499,  500. 

Alexander  of  Alexandria:  convenes 
a  synod  against  Arius,  222;  his 
teaching  on  the  Logos,  222,  223. 

Allegorism:  of  the  Hellenic  Jews, 

Sf;  Clement  of  Alexandria,  197; 
rigen,  208. 
Alogi:   a   second   century  heretical 

sect,  158. 

Ambrose  of  Milan:  his  life  and 
writings,  233;  his  teaching  on 
God,  258;  the  Trinity,  269;  pro 
cession  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  269; 
Christology,  314;  the  redemption, 

509 


321 ;  the  angels,  295,  297 ;  sacra 
mental  character,  344;  symbolism, 
343,  344;  baptism  in  the  name  of 
Jesus,  351 ;  power  of  the  keys, 

352,  note;  Eucharistic  conversion, 

353,  354J  original  sin,  363;  neces 
sity  of  grace,  372";  grace  of  adop 
tion,   306;    Mary's   virginity,  444; 
purgatory,  454;   eternity   of   hell, 
460. 

Ambrosiaster :  on  original  sin,  361; 
divorce,  355. 

Amphilochius  of  Iconium:  life  and 
writings,  231 ;  his  teaching  on  the 
Trinity,  266 ;  procession  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  266;  Christology, 
308-312. 

Andrew  of  Samosata:  attacks  the 
anathematisms  of  Cyril,  396, 

Angelology:  of  the  Old  Testament, 
22,  23;  Philo,  32";  Hermas,  97; 
the  Apologists,  127;  Origen,  202, 
299;  4th  cent,  writers,  293-299; 
the  Pseudo-Areopagite,  295,  296; 
Gregory  I,  296.  Creation  of  the 
angels,  297;  their  elevation,  297, 
298;  their  fall,  298;  their  nature, 
294,  295;  orders  and  choirs,  296, 
297;  guardian  angels,  299;  de 
mons,  inciters  to  evil,  298,  299. 

Anthropology:  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  23,  24;  Philo,  32,  33;  the 
Apologists,  127,  128;  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  195,  300;  Origen, 
202;  Irenseus,  145;  4th  cent,  writ 
ers,  299-307;  later  writers,  465, 
466. 

Apelles:  Gnostic  heretic,  103. 

Aphraates:  life  and  writings,  232; 
his  teaching  on  the  judgment,  458. 

Apollinaris :  his  teaching  on  the 
humanity  of  Christ,  249-251 ;  con 
demned  by  the  2nd  General  Coun 
cil,  251. 

Apologists,     second-century :     their 


INDEX 


writings,  110-113;  defense  of 
Christian  morals,  113,  114;  rela 
tion  to  pagan  philosophy,  114, 
115;  exposition  of  Christian  doc 
trine,  115-135;  their  teaching  on 
the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture, 
116;  on  God,  116-118;  the  Logos, 
118-125;  the  Holy  Ghost,  125,  126; 
the  Trinity,  126,  127;  creation, 
117,  127;  the  angels,  127;  the 
origin  of  the  soul,  300;  anthro 
pology,  127,  128;  the  immortality 
of  the  soul,  128,  129;  the  re 
demption,  127;  the  Church,  129- 
133;  baptism,  130;  the  Eucharist, 
131,  132;  Christology,  127;  the 
Blessed  Virgin,  133;  original  sin, 
129;  eschatology,  133. 

Aristides :  his  apology,  HI;  de 
fense  of  Christian  morals,  113, 
114;  his  teaching  on  God,  116; 
the  Logos,  121. 

Arius:  his  early  life,  219,  220;  his 
teaching  on  the  Logos,  220;  on 
God,  254;  his  condemnation,  225; 
banishment,  227 ;  recall  and  death, 
237.  Arian  reaction,  236,  237 ;  its 
nature  and  causes,  237-240 ;  out 
line  of,  240-246. 

Aries,  council  of:  its  ruling  on  re- 
baptism,  182. 

Artemas :  a  Monarchian  heretic,  155. 

Asterius  of  Amasea :  on  the  ven 
eration  of  images,  479. 

Athanasius  of  Alexandria :  life  and 
writings,  234;  at  the  Council  of 
Nicaea,  233 ;  persecuted  by  the 
Eusebians,  233 ;  appeals  to  Rome, 
241,  328;  at  the  Council  of  Sar- 
dica,  242;  his  teaching  on  the  es 
sence  and  attributes  of  God,  258; 
on  the  Trinity,  261,  262;  proces 
sion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  491 ;  crea 
tion,  285-287;  the  angels,  298; 
Christology,  308,  309;  the  re 
demption,  319;  the  grace  of 
Christ,  305 ;  original  sin,  360 ; 
Mary's  virginity,  442. 

Athenagoras:  his  apology,  in;  his 
teaching  on  Holy  Scripture,  112; 
the  Logos,  120;  the  Trinity,  121. 

Augustine  of  Hippo:  life  and  writ 


ings,  234;  his  teaching  on  the  ex 
istence  of  God,  258,  259;  essence 
and  attributes  of  God,  25H-2OO; 
the  Trinity,  270-274;  divine  per 
sons,  272,  273;  one  principle  of 
procession,  273,  274;  origin  of 
evil,  283,  284;  creation,  288;  God 
alone  can  create,  289;  nature  of 
creative  work,  289;  the  rationes 
seminales,  290-292 ;  the  angels, 
297,  298;  origin  of  the  soul,  301; 
original  sin,  existence  of,  362,  363 ; 
nature  of,  364;  mode  of  trans 
mission,  364,  365;  effects  of,  365, 
366;  Christology,  314-316;  the  re 
demption,  321,  322 ;  Adam's  primi 
tive  condition,  372,  373 ;  the  gratia 
justitiae,  373,  374;  the  grace  of 
adoption,  306,  307;  the  auxilium 
quo  et  quo  non,  374;  actual  grace, 
375;  sufficient  and  efficacious 
grace,  375,  376 ;  necessity  and  gra- 
tuitousness  of  grace,  377;  predes 
tination  and  reprobation,  377,  378 ; 
the  Church,  332-337;  notes  of  the 
Church,  333-335;  primacy  of  the 
Pope,  335,  336;  infallibility,  335, 
336;  the  sacraments,  347-35°; 
definition  of,  347;  institution  by 
Christ,  348;  number  of,  350,  351; 
efficacy,  348,  349;  conditions  of 
fruitful  reception,  445,  446;  char 
acter,  350;  the  Eucharist,  352, 
353;  the  power  of  the  keys,  35*2, 
note ;  extreme  unction,  355 ; 
Mary's  holiness,  445;  immaculate 
conception,  445,  446;  purgatory, 
454-456;  the  eternity  of  hell,  461, 
462;  communion  of  saints,  463. 

Baptism :  teaching  of  the  New  Tes 
tament,  38,  40,  42,  51;  the  Apos 
tolic  Fathers,  89,  91 ;  the  Apolo 
gists,  130;  inscription  of  Abercius, 
136;  Irenaeus,  146;  Tertullian, 
167;  Cyprian,  178;  Clement  of  Al 
exandria,  196;  Origen,  205;  4th 
cent  writers,  351.  Effects  of  bap 
tism,  167,  178,  196,  369,  345 ;  char 
acter,  341,  344;  symbolism,  339, 
343.  Baptism  of  children,  146, 
178,  167,  196,  205.  Baptism  of 


INDEX 


blood,    167,    178,   351;    of   desire, 

35i- 

Baptismal  controversy,  180-183. 

Basil  of  Ancyra :  Semi-Arian  leader, 
244. 

Basil  the  Great:  life  and  writings, 
229;  his  teaching  on  the  essence 
and  attributes  of  God,  256,  257; 
on  the  Trinity,  263,  264;  the  pro 
cession  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  264, 
491 ;  the  nature  of  the  angels,  294, 
297;  their  elevation,  297;  Adam's 
primitive  condition,  319,  320 ;  orig 
inal  sin,  360;  the  necessity  of 
grace,  370;  purgatory,  453;  the 
veneration  of  images,  477. 

Beatus  of  Libana:  opposes  Spanish 
Adoptionism,  499. 

Bede,  Venerable:  bears  witness  to 
the  Primacy,  470. 

Boethius:  defines  nature  and  per 
son,  435. 

Boniface  II,  Pope :  confirms  the  2nd 
Council  of  Orange,  385. 

Boniface  of  Mayence :  his  ruling  on 
the  administration  of  the  last  sac 
raments,  474. 

Csesarius  of  Aries :  his  efforts  to  end 
the  Semi-Pelagian  controversy, 
385,  386;  his  classification  of  sins, 
473;  his  teaching  on  purgatory, 

Callistus,  Pope :  condemns  the  Mon- 
archian  heresy,  156;  his  ruling  on 
penance,  186,  187. 

Carthage,  council  of:  condemns 
Pelagianism,  369;  approved  by 
Pope  Zozimus,  369. 

Cassian,  John :  opposes  the  teaching 
of  Augustine  on  grace,  379;  his 
views  on  the  beginning  of  good 
works,  380;  on  the  nature  of 
grace,  380,  381 ;  on  predestination 
and  final  perseverance,  381. 

Cassiodorus:  on  the  origin  of  the 
soul,  466;  defines  personality,  435. 

Catacombs :  their  testimony  to  the 
veneration  of  saints  and  images, 
477,  478. 

Celestine  I,  Pope :  is  appealed  to  by 
Nestorius,  392;  his  teaching  on 


the  person  of  Christ,  392,  395; 
condemns  Nestorius  and  makes 
Cyril  his  representative,  393 ; 
sends  legates  to  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  and  instructs  the  Coun 
cil,  396,  397- 

Celestius :  Pelagian  heretic,  357 ;  his 
preaching  in  Africa,  359. 

Celsus :  eclectic  Platonist,  108;  his 
"  True  Discourse,"  108,  109. 

Cerdo:  Gnostic  heretic,  102;  applies 
for  reconciliation,  103. 

Cerinthus :  Judaizing  Gnostic,  85. 

Chalcedon :  council  of,  404-407 ;  in 
structed  by  Pope  Leo,  405;  con 
demns  Eutyches  and  defines  the 
duality  of  nature  in  Christ,  406; 
Creed  of,  406. 

Chapters,  the  Three:  origin  and 
meaning  of,  416;  controversy  on, 
417;  condemned  by  the  5th  Gen 
eral  Council,  419;  inconsistent 
conduct  of  Pope  Vigilius,  417- 
421. 

Character,  sacramental:  teaching  of 
the  Apostolic  Fathers,  91 ;  Tertul- 
lian,  344;  later  writers,  341,  344, 
350. 

Charlemagne :  his  attitude  in  refer 
ence  to  the  veneration  of  images, 
487;  the  Filioque  clause,  496; 
Spanish  Adoptionism,  500. 

Children,  baptism  of:  cfr.  146,  167, 
178,  205. 

Christology:  of  the  Synoptists,  45- 
47;  St.  John,  47;  St.  Paul,  47-49; 
the  Apostolic  Fathers,  76-78;  the 
Apologists,  127;  Irenseus,  146; 
Hippolytus,  150;  the  Monarchian 
heretics,  154;  Tertullian,  165;  No- 
vatian,  171 ;  Clement  of  Alexan 
dria,  195;  Origen,  204;  Paul  of 
Samosata,  155 ;  Arius,  221 ;  Apol- 
linaris,  249-251 ;  4th  cent,  writers, 
Greek,  308-312;  Latin,  312-314; 
Augustine,  314-316;  the  Qui- 
cumque,  316;  Cyril  of  Alexandria, 
408,  411;  Theodoret  of  Cyrus, 
435-437 ;  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia, 
388,  389;  Nestorius,  39O-395 ;  Le- 
ontius  of  Byzantium,  437-439 ;  Ab 
bot  Maximus,  439-441. —  Christ's 


INDEX 


divinity  before  the  Council  of 
Nicaea,  46,  47,  48,  72-75,  127,  146, 
150,  165,  166,  171,  195,  203,  211, 
212,  213,  214,  226. —  Unity  of  per 
son  and  duality  of  nature  before 
the  5th  century  Christological  con 
troversies,  77,  78,  127,  146,  150,  1 66, 
171,  195,  294,  213,  214,  309,  311, 
3*3,  3!5- — His  human  knowledge, 
309,  310,  314;  His  sanctity,  310, 
314. —  Christological  problem,  220, 
221. 

Chrysostom,  John :  life  and  writ 
ings,  231 ;  his  teaching  on  the  pro 
cession  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  491 ; 
on  creation,  286;  original  sin,  361 ; 
sacramental  symbolism,  341 ;  sac 
ramental  character,  341 ;  the  min 
ister  of  the  sacraments,  343;  the 
effects  of  baptism,  369,  370 ;  neces 
sity  of  grace,  371;  divorce,  356; 
purgatory,  454;  the  judgment, 
457;  beatific  vision,  460;  venera 
tion  of  saints,  450. 

Church,  the:  in  the  Synoptists,  36, 
39;  St.  John,  39-41;  St.  Paul,  41- 
44;  in  Apostolic  times,  51,  52;  the 
Apostolic  Fathers,  69,  70,  80-89; 
Apologists,  129-132;  Hegesippus, 
J35  5  Irenasus,  141-145 ;  Hippolytus, 
151;  Tertullian,  161,  167;  Cyprian, 
171-178;  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
196 ;  Origen,  199,  205 ;  Methodius, 
210;  Adamantius,  210;  at  the  be 
ginning  of  the  4th  century,  218, 
219 ;  4th  cent,  writers,  Greek,  32*5- 
328 ;  Latin,  328,  329 ;  Optatus,  329- 
332;  Augustine,  332-337;  later 
writers,  468-470.  Notes  of  the 
Church,  326,  330,  335,  468,  469. 
Independent  of  the  State,  328;  her 
teaching  authority,  335,  69,  80,  81, 
130,  131,  143,  172,  173,  214;  her  in 
fallibility,  143,  335,  336. 

Clement  of  Alexandria:  life  and 
writings,  190-194;  his  teaching  on 
faith  and  gnosis,  192-194;  the 
Logos,  194;  the  Holy  Ghost,  195; 
the  Trinity,  195 ;  creation,  195 ;  an 
thropology,  195;  original  sin,  195; 
Christology,  195,  196 ;  the  redemp 
tion,  196;  the  Church,  196,  sacra 


mental  symbolism,  340;  baptism, 
196;  the  Eucharist,  196,  197;  pen 
ance,  197,  188;  matrimony,  197; 
eschatology,  197 ;  on  property,  194. 

(Clement  of  Rome:  his  letter  to  the 
Corinthians,  64,  65;  his  teaching 
on  God  and  His  attributes,  70,  71 ; 
the  divinity  of  Christ,  72,  73;  hu 
manity  of  Christ,  77,  78;  the  re 
demption,  78,  79;  the  Church,  80, 
83;  the  hierarchy,  82,  83;  schism, 
83;  the  Primacy,  82,  83;  sacrifice, 
92-. 

Communicatio  Idiomatum :  in  the 
Apostolic  Fathers,  78;  in  Gnostic 
writings,  104;  the  Apologists,  127; 
Irenseus,  146;  Tertullian,  166;  Or 
igen,  204;  Gregory  of  Nazianzus, 
311;  Zeno  of  Verona,  313;  Theo 
dore  of  Mopsuestia,  389;  Nestor- 
ius,  395 ;  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  395 ; 
Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  437. 

Confession  of  sins:  teaching  of  the 
Didache,  93 ;  Pseudo-Barnabas, 
184;  Ignatius,  93;  Secunda  de 
mentis,  93;  Cyprian,  179;  Origen, 
206 ;  later  writers,  352,  473. 

Confirmation :  in  the  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul,  42;  the  Acts,  52;  Cyprian, 
178;  Tertullian,  167;  4th  cent, 
writers,  340-344;  Augustine,  347, 
350;  later  writers,  472;  Euchol- 
gium  of  Serapion,  342 ;  Greek  for 
mula,  342 ;  symbolism  of,  340,  343 ; 
character,  342,  344,  350. 

Constantine  the  Great:  gives  peace 
to  the  Church,  229;  his  efforts  to 
settle  the  Arian  dispute,  223 ;  pres 
ent  at  the  Council,  224;  banishes 
Arius,  and  then  recalls  him,  227, 
237;  is  baptized  on  his  deathbed, 
2-37- 

Constantine  Copronymus :  proscribes 
image-veneration,  484. 

Constantinople,  councils  of:  2nd 
General,  condemns  the  Semi- 
Arian,  Macedonian,  and  Apolli- 
narian  heresies,  and  defines  the 
divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the 
perfect  humanity  of  Christ,  248- 
252. — 5th  General,  condemns  the 
Three  Chapters,  417-419. — 6th 


INDEX 


513 


General,  condemns  the  Monothe- 
lite  heresy  and  defines  the  two 
wills  in  Christ,  428^31-— 8th 
General,  settles  the  dispute  be 
tween  Ignatius  and  Photius,  and 
reaffirms  the  lawfulness  of  image- 
veneration,  501-504. 

Councils,  General:  see  place  where 
they  were  held. 

Conversion,  Eucharistic :  teaching  of 
Justin  Martyr,  132;  Irenaeus,  147; 
Origen,  207 ;  4th  cent,  writers,  353, 
354;  later  writers,  472. 

Creation,  doctrine  of :  in  the  Old 
Testament,  22;  Philo,  32;  in  the 
early  Church,  284,  285;  Hermas, 
70;  teaching  of  Athanasius,  285, 
286 ;  Chrysostom,  286 ;  Hilary,  286, 
287 ;  Ephrem,  287 ;  Augustine,  288- 
292;  creation  in  time,  286;  God 
created  freely,  286,  289 ;  God  alone 
can  create,  287,  289;  the  Trinity 
creates  as  one  principle,  287,  288; 
Augustine's  rationes  seminales, 
290-292. 

Creed:  Apostolic,  53;  Nicene,  226; 
Constantinopolitan,  252 ;  Athana- 
sian,  274,  316;  Union,  399;  against 
the  Monophysites,  406 ;  the  Mono- 
thelites,  430;  in  the  liturgy,  495- 
498 ;  as  a  rule  of  faith,  in  Irenseus, 
141 ;  Tertullian,  162 ;  Origen,  109. 

Cyprian  of  Carthage :  life  and  writ 
ings,  171,  172;  his  teaching  on 
original  sin,  361 ;  the  constitution 
of  the  Church,  171-173;  the  hier 
archy,  172,  173;  episcopal  author 
ity,  173;  provincial  synods,  174; 
the  Primacy,  174-177;  the  sacra 
ments,  177,  178;  sacramental 
character,  344 ;  sacramental 
symbolism,  243;  baptism  of 
children,  178;  of  heretics,  178; 
confirmation,  178;  the  Eucharist, 
.Real  Presence,  sacrifice,  178,  179; 
holy  orders,  179;  matrimony,  179. 
His  part  in  the  baptismal  contro 
versy,  180-183. 

Cyril  of  Alexandria :  his  controversy 
with  Nestorius,  391-393;  appeals 
to  the  Pope,  394;  presides  at  the 
Council  of  Ephesus,  396-400;  his 


anathematisms,  394;  relation  to 
the  Monophysites,  408-41 1 ;  to  the 
Monothelites,  412 ;  his  teaching  on 
the  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
492 ;  the  redemption,  468 ;  on 
grace,  305,  467;  original  sin,  467; 
veneration  of  images,  479. 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem:  life  and  writ 
ings,  229 ;  his  teaching  on  the  pro 
cession  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  490; 
the  Church,  325,  326;  sacramental 
symbolism,  341,  342;  Eucharistic 
conversion,  353 ;  the  epiclesis,  354 ; 
the  grace  of  Christ,  305;  purga 
tory,  453;  the  resurrection,  459. 

Damascene,  John:  his  position  as  a 
theological  writer,  475;  teaching 
on  the  procession  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  493;  on  grace,  306;  the 
epiclesis,  354;  veneration  of  im 
ages,  483,  484. 

Damasus,  Pope:  condemns  the 
teaching  of  Apollinaris,  251. 

Didache,  the :  origin  and  contents  of, 
62-64;  its  teaching  on  God,  70, 
71 ;  the  divinity  of  Christ,  72 ;  the 
Trinity,  76;  the  Church,  87;  the 
hierarchy,  87,  88;  baptism,  oo; 
the  Eucharist,  91,  92;  sacrifice,  93; 
confession  of  sins,  93;  resurrec 
tion  of  the  dead,  96. 

Didymus  the  Blind :  life  and  writ 
ings,  230;  his  teaching  on  the 
Trinity,  265;  procession  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  266 ;  origin  of  the 
soul,  300;  trichotomy,  300;  orig 
inal  sin,  360 ;  Mary's  virginity,  443. 

Docetism:  opposed  by  Ignatius,  77, 
92;  Polycarp,  77;  in  Gnostic  writ 
ings,  102,  104. 

Diodorus  of  Tarsus:  life  and  writ 
ings,  231 ;  his  relation  to  Nestori- 
anism,  388. 

Diognetus,  Letter  to :  its  teaching  on 
the  divinity  of  Christ,  121 ;  on  the 
immortality  of  the  soul,  128;  the 
redemption,  317,  318. 

Dionysius  of  Alexandria:  reported 
to  Rome  on  the  charge  of  heresy, 
21 1 ;  his  teaching  on  the  Trinity, 
212. 


INDEX 


Dionysius  of  Corinth:  his  teaching 
on  penance,  184,  188. 

Dionysius,  Pope:  his  letter  to  the 
bishop  of  Alexandria,  211;  his 
teaching  on  the  Trinity,  211. 

Dioscorus  of  Alexandria:  presides 
at  the  Robber  Synod,  403;  sup 
ports  Eutyches,  404;  excluded 
from  the  Council  of  Chalcedon, 

405- 

Divorce :  in  the  Old  Testament,  35 ; 
teaching  of  Origen,  207;  4th  cent, 
writers,  355,  356;  later  writers, 

475- 

Dogma:  derivation  and  meaning  of 
the  term,  i,  2;  definition  of  dog 
ma,  2;  history  of  dogma,  2,  3,  4; 
development  of  dogmas  during 
the  first  three  centuries,  215-217; 
from  the  Council  of  Nicsea  to  the 
end  of  the  Patristic  age,  504-509. 

Donatist  Schism:  origin  and  spread 
of,  323,  324- 

Ecthesis :  Monothelite  profession  of 
faith  composed  by  Sergius  of 
Constantinople,  426 ;  condemned 
by  Pope  John  IV,  427. 

Elipandus  of  Toledo :  author  of 
Spanish  Adoptionism,  498,  500. 

Elvira,  council  of:  on  the  venera 
tion  of  images,  478. 

Ephesus:  council  of,  396-400;  in 
structed  by  Pope  Celestine,  396; 
its  use  of  the  argument  from 
the  Fathers,  397;  condemns 
Nestorius  and  declares  Mary 
Theotokos,  398;  opposition  of 
John  of  Antioch,  398,  399. 

Ephrem,  the  Syrian:  life  and 
writings,  238;  his  teaching  on  the 
procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
287;  on  creation,  287;  the  Prim 
acy,  327;  Mary's  sanctity  and 
immaculate  conception,  443;  suf 
frages  for  the  dead,  453,  454. 

Epiclesis:  its  relation  to  Euchar- 
istic  conversion,  354,  472. 

Epiphanius  of  Salamis :  life  and 
writings,  230;  his  teaching  on 
the  Trinity,  266,  267;  on  the  pro 
cession  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  491 ; 


the  angels,  297;  origin  of  the 
soul,  300;  the  Church,  326,  327; 
superiority  of  bishops  over 
priests,  326;  Mary's  virginity, 
442;  purgatory,  454;  resurrec 
tion  of  the  dead,  458;  veneration 
of  the  saints,  450. 

Eschatology:  in  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  25,  26,  27;  the  Synoptists, 
38,  39;  St.  John,  41;  St.  Paul, 
43;  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  96, 
97 ;  the  Apologists,  133 ;  Irenseus, 
148;  Hippolytus,  152;  Tertullian, 
169;  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
197;  Origen,  202;  4th  cent,  writ 
ers,  457-463. 

Essenes:  Jewish  ascetics,  21. 

Eucharist :  in  the  Synoptists,  38 ; 
St.  John,  40;  St.  Paul,  42;  the 
Apostolic  Fathers,  91-93;  Justin 
Martyr,  131,  132;  Irenaeus,  146, 
147;  Tertullian,  167,  168;  Cy 
prian,  178,  179;  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  196,  197;  Origen, 
207;  4th  cent,  writers,  352,  353; 
later  writers,  472,  473.  Cfr. 
Conversion,  Epiclesis. 

Eunomius:  Arian  leader,  244;  his 
teaching  on  the  nature  of  God, 

25S. 

Eusebius  of  Caesarea:  life  and 
writings,  228;  the  part  he  played 
at  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  226;  in 
the  Arian  reaction,  239;  his  re 
marks  on  the  paschal  dispute, 
139;  on  St.  Peter  in  Rome,  329. 

Eusebius  of  Dorybeum :  charges 
Eutyches  with  heretical  teach 
ing,  401 ;  is  violently  attacked  at 
the  Robber  Synod,  402. 

Eusebius  of  Nicomedia :  his  rela 
tions  with  Constantine,  237; 
head  of  the  Eusebians,  237;  tem 
porary  success  of  his  party,  243. 

Eutyches :  author  of  the  Mono- 
physite  heresy,  401,  402;  con 
demned  by  Flavian,  402;  appeals 
to  the  Pope,  402;  supported  by 
the  Robber  Synod,  404;  con 
demned  by  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  406. 

Evil,     origin    of:     Gnostic    views, 


INDEX 


515 


101-104;  Christian  solution,  145, 
282;  teaching  of  Augustine,  283, 
284. 

Extreme  Unction:  in  Apostolic 
times,  52;  Tertullian,  168;  4th 
cent,  writers,  355;  later  writers, 
474- 

Fathers,  Apostolic:  their  writings, 
62-69;  their  teaching,  69-98;  on 
God,  70,  72;  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  72-75;  the  Holy  Ghost, 
75,  76;  the  Trinity,  75,  76;  crea 
tion,  70;  the  humanity  of  Christ, 
76-78;  the  hypostatic  union,  68; 
the  redemption,  78-80;  the 
Church,  80-89;  baptism,  90-93; 
penance,  93-96;  matrimony,  96; 
eschatology,  96;  their  conserva 
tism,  97,  98;  the  Eucharist,  91- 

93- 

Faith:  definition  of,  48,  49;  its 
necessity  for  salvation,  49,  53, 
69,  70,  71 :  it  must  bear  fruit  in 
good  works,  97,  113,  114,  145, 
166;  its  relation  to  knowledge, 
192-194. 

Faustus  of  Riez:  opposes  predes- 
tinarianism,  384;  his  relation  to 
Semi-Pelagianism,  384 ;  his 
teaching  is  attacked  by  the 
Scythian  monks  and  Fulgentius 
of  Ruspe,  384,  385. 

Felix  III,  Pope:  appealed  to  by 
Talaias  of  Antioch,  412;  ex 
communicates  Acacius  of  Con 
stantinople,  413. 

Felix  IV,  Pope :  his  propositions 
against  the  Semi- Pelagians,  385. 

Felix  of  Urgel:  defends  Adoption- 
ism,  498;  is  condemned  by  sev 
eral  synods,  500. 

Filioque  controversy:  its  origin  in 
the  West,  495 ;  historical  aspect 
of  the  doctrine  involved,  490- 
495 ;  the  position  taken  by  the 
East,  496,  497. 

Flavian  of  Constantinople:  ex 
communicates  Eutyches,  402 ;  is 
deposed  by  the  Robber  Synod, 
404;  sent  into  exile,  404. 

Frankfort,   synod  of:   on  the  ven 


eration  of  images,  488;  condemns 
Spanish  Adoptionism,  501. 

Free  Will :  man's  natural  endow 
ment,  23;  not  lost  in  the  fall, 
301 ;  but  inclined  to  evil,  302 ; 
necessary  for  the  practice  of 
virtue,  127,  128;  145,  166;  un 
duly  emphasized  by  Pelagius, 
368;  and  Semi-Pelagians,  380; 
its  action  under  the  influence  of 
grace,  370-372;  376. 

Fulgentius  of  Ruspe:  opposes 
Faustus  of  Riez  on  the  question 
of  grace  and  predestination,  384, 
385- 

Germanus  of  Constantinople:  bears 
witness  to  the  Assumption,  448. 

Gnosticism :  in  Apostolic  times,  56, 
57;  fundamental  concepts  of, 
101,  102;  various  systems,  102; 
common  elements,  103,  104;  its 
influence  on  Christian  thought, 
104,  105. 

God,  His  nature  and  attributes : 
in  the  Old  Testament,  21,  22; 
Philo,  31;  the  Apostolic  Fathers, 
7O-73;  in  Gnostic  writings,  103; 
the  Apologists,  116,  118,  125; 
Irenseus,  145;  Hippolytus,  149, 
150;  Tertullian,  162;  Novatian, 
170;  Clement  of  Alexandria,  194, 
195 ;  Origen,  201 ;  Arius,  254 ; 
Eunomius,  255 ;  4th  cent,  writers, 
Greek,  255-258;  Latin,  258-260; 
Augustine,  258,  259. 

Gregory  the  Great,  Pope:  his 
teaching  on  the  orders  and 
choirs  of  angels,  296;  on  the 
Primacy,  470;  purgatory,  456; 
grace,  466. 

Gregory  III,  Pope:  condemns  the 
Iconoclasts,  482. 

Gregory  of  Nazianzus :  life  and 
writings,  229;  his  teaching  on 
the  essence  and  attributes  of 
God,  256;  on  the  Trinity,  264; 
creation,  282,  287;  the  angels, 
294,  297;  Adam's  primitive  con 
dition,  304;  Christology,  308- 
3 i2  ;f  the  redemption,  319,  320; 
original  sin,  361 ;  the  necessity  of 


INDEX 


grace,  370,  371;  divorce,  355; 
Mary's  virginity,  442;  the  beatific 
vision,  460;  his  exposition  of 
the  Macedonian  heresy,  249. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa:  life  and  writ 
ings,  230;  his  teaching  on  God, 
356,  357J  the  Trinity,  264;  pro 
cession  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  265, 
491;  the  angels,  294,  295,  299; 
origin  of  the  human  soul,  300; 
Adam's  primitive  condition,  304; 
sacramental  character,  342;  the 
redemption,  320;  Eucharistic  con 
version,  358 ;  original  sin,  361 ; 
purgatory,  453;  resurrection  of 
the  body,  459;  apokatastasis, 
460;  veneration  of  the  saints, 
450. 

Hadrian  I,  Pope:  opposes  Spanish 
Adoptionism,  499;  approves  the 
Synod  of  Frankfort,  501. 

Hadrian  II,  Pope:  condemns 
Photius,  502;  sends  legates  to  the 
8th  General  Council,  502. 

Harnack:  his  views  on  the  cor 
rupting  influence  of  paganism  on 
the  message  of  Christ,  15,  16; 
on  the  early  Christian  concept  of 
God,  71 ;  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
74;  the  Cappadocians  as  "homoi- 
ousians,"  267 ;  the  difference  of 
the  Trinitarian  teaching  of  the 
East  and  West,  268;  on  Pope 
Celestine's  treatment  of  Nes- 
torius,  395. 

Hegesippus :  fragment  of  his  writ- 
tings  on  the  Church  and  Apos 
tolic  succession,  135. 

Hell:   eternity  of,  460-462. 

Helvidius:  denies  the  virginity  of 
Mary,  444:  refuted  by  St. 
Jerome,  444,  445- 

Henoticon  of  Zeno,  the:  its  origin 
and  purpose,  412. 

Heresy :  in  Apostolic  times,  57-61 ; 
Docetic,  77;  Gnostic,  101-105 ; 
Monarchian,  153-156;  Arian, 
219-225;  Semi-Arian,  241-244; 
Macedonian,  248-249 ;  Apollinar- 
ian,  249-251 ;  Manichsean,  276- 
279;  Priscillian,  279-282;  Pelag 


ian,  357-36o;  Semi-Pelagian, 
379-386 ;  Nestorian,  387-396 ; 
Monophysite,  401-404 ;  Mono- 
thelite,  423-428;  Iconoclast,  481- 
485;  Adoptionist,  498-501. 

Hernias:  brother  of  Pope  Pius  I, 
67;  contents  of  the  "Shepherd," 
67,  68;  his  teaching  on  God,  70; 
the  divinity  of  Christ,  75 ;  the 
Holy  Ghost,  75,  76 ;  the  redemp 
tion,  79;  the  Church,  85-87; 
baptism,  90,  91 ;  penance,  93-95 ; 
matrimony,  96;  the  hierarchy, 
86,  87;  Primacy,  87. 
^Hierarchy:  teaching  of  St.  Paul, 
42;  the  Acts,  52;  the  Apostolic 
Fathers,  82,  83,  87,  88,  89;  Ter- 
tullian,  167,  169;  Cyprian,  172; 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  196 ; 
Origen,  205;  4th  cent,  writers, 
326-328;  later  writers,  474. 

Hilary  of  Poitiers :  life  and  writ 
ings,  233;  his  teaching  on  God, 
258;  the  Trinity,  268,  269;  pro' 
cession  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  494; 
the  angels,  295 ;  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  313;  His  human  perfec 
tions,  314;  creation,  286,  287;  the 
redemption,  321 ;  original  sin, 
361;  the  necessity  of  grace,  372; 
the  judgment,  457;  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  459. 

Hippolytus :  his  writings,  149 ;  his 
teaching  on  God,  149,  150;  the 
Logos,  150;  divine  sonship,  150; 
the  Holy  Ghost,  150,  151 ;  the 
God-Man,  150;  the  redemption, 
151 ;  the  Church,  151 ;  baptism, 
151;  penance,  151;  eschatology, 
151,  152. 

Holy  Ghost,  the:  teaching  of  the 
Synoptists,  44;  St.  John,  44;  St. 
Paul,  45 ;  the  Apostolic  Fathers, 
75,  76;  the  Apologists,  125,  126; 
Irenaeus,  146;  Hippolytus,  150; 
Tertullian,  162-165 ;  Novatian, 
170;  Clement  of  Alexandria,  195; 
Origen,  200,  201,  204;  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus,  212;  the  Council 
of  Nicsea,  226;  the  Macedonian 
heretics,  249;  the  ist  Council  of 
Constantinople,  252;  4th  cent. 


INDEX 


517 


I 


writers,  Greek,  262-268;  Latin, 
268-271 ;  Augustine,  271-275. 
Procession  of,  cfr.  "Filioque 
clause." 

Homoousios:  use  of  the  term  by 
Paul  of  Samosata,  155;  Tertul- 
lian,  162;  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
194;  Origen,  201,  204;  Dionysius 
of  Alexandria,  212;  the  Council 
of  Nicsea,  226,  227;  during  the 
Arian  reaction,  238  foil. ;  4th  cent, 
writers,  Greek,  263,  266,  268; 
Latin,  270. 

Honorius,  Pope:  his  first  and  sec 
ond  letter  to  Sergius,  424,  425; 
interpretation  of  them  by  John 
IV  and  Abbot  Maximus,  431 ; 
view  taken  by  the  6th  General 
Council,  430;  by  Leo  II,  430. 

Hormisdas,  Pope:  refuses  to  ap 
prove  the  addition  to  the  Trisa- 
gion,  414;  his  formula  sub 
scribed  by  the  Eastern  bishops, 
413;  by  the  8th  General  Council, 

503. 

Hosius  of  Cordova :  his  life  and 
activity,  233;  ecclesiastical  ad 
viser  of  Constantine,  223;  at  the 
Council  of  Nicsea,  227;  presides 
over  the  Council  of  Sardica,  242; 
his  fall,  245. 

Hypostasis :  use  of  the  term  dur 
ing  the  Arian  reaction,  238;  by 
the  Cappadocians,  264-268;  Cyril 
of  Alexandria,  409;  the  Anti- 
ochene  school,  409,  410;  Theo- 
doret  of  Cyrus,  436,  437 ;  Leontius 
of  Byzantium,  438;  its  Latin 
equivalent,  435. 

Hypostatic  Union:  see  "Christ,  un 
ity  of  person." 

Iconoclast  Heresy:  in  Syria,  481; 
in  the  Eastern  Empire,  482,  485; 
condemned  by  the  2nd  Council 
of  Nicsea,  486;  opposition  to  im 
age-veneration  in  the  West,  487, 
488. 

Ignatius  of  Antioch :  his  letters  and 
their  contents,  65,  66;  his  teach 
ing  on  the  sources  of  faith,  69; 
on  God,  70;  the  divinity  of  the 


Logos,  74;  the  Holy  Ghost,  76; 
the  Trinity,  76;  the  unity  of  per 
son  and  duality  of  nature  in 
Christ,  77,  78;  the  redemption, 
79;  the  Church,  83,  84;  the 
hierarchy,  84;  the  Primacy,  84, 
85;  the  Eucharist,  92,  93;  pen 
ance,  92,  matrimony,  96. 

Ignatius  of  Constantinople:  his 
deposition  and  banishment,  501 ; 
reinstated,  502;  appeals  to  the 
Pope  for  a  general  council,  502. 

Images,  veneration  of  :  meaning  and 
purpose  of  the  cult,  476;  his 
torical  aspect,  477-481 ;  con 
demned  by  the  synod  of  Constan 
tinople,  484,  485;  approved  by 
the  2nd  Council  of  Nicaea,  486; 
approval  reaffirmed  by  the  8th 
General  Council,  503;  controversy 
in  the  West,  487,  488. 

Innocent  I,  Pope:  Tapproyes  the 
Council  of  Carthage  against  the 
Pelagians,  358;  his  teaching  on 
extreme  unction,  355. 

Irenaeus  of  Lyons:  life  and  writ- 
tings,  138-140;  his  position  as  a 
theologian,  140,  141;  159;  his 
teaching  on  God,  145;  the  divin 
ity  of  Christ,  146;  the  Holy 
Ghost,  146;  the  Trinity,  146;  or 
iginal  sin,  145;  on  grace,  304; 
Holy  Scripture,  141 ;  the  Rule  of 
Faith,  141,  142;  the  Church,  142- 
145;  the  Primacy,  144;  baptism 
of  children,  146;  the  Eucharist, 
146,  147;  sacrifice,  147;  penance, 
148,  185,  188;  the  Millennium, 
148;  on  the  Virgin  Mary,  146. 

Isidore  of  Pelusium :  his  teaching 
on  original  sin,  467. 

Isidore  of  Seville :  his  teaching  on 
grace,  466;  the  origin  of  the  soul, 
466;  the  sacraments,  471. 

Israel:  its  relation  to  Christianity, 
18-34- 

Jerome  of  Stridon:  life  and  writ 
ings,  234;  his  teaching  on  the 
Trinity,  270;  the  angels,  295,  298; 
origin  of  the  soul,  301 ;  holy  or 
ders,  355;  Mary's  virginity,  444; 


INDEX 


eternity  of  hell,  460;  his  estimate 
of  St.  Cyprian,  172;  original  sin, 
361,  362;  veneration  of  the  saints, 
450. 

Jews,  the:  of  Palestine,  18-30;  of 
the  Dispersion,  30-34;  as  con 
verts,  52,  53,  55,  56. 

John  of  Antioch:  counsels  Nesto- 
rius  to  submit  to  the  Pope,  393; 
his  controversy  with  Cyril,  396; 
opposes  the  Council  of  Ephesus, 
398,  399;  his  submission,  399. 

John  IV,  Pope:  condemns  the 
Monothelites,  426,  427;  his  in 
terpretation  of  the  letters  of 
Honorius,  431. 

Jovinian :  denies  the  virginity  of 
Mary,  444;  is  refuted  by  St. 
Jerome,  444,  445. 

Judgment,  the:  teaching  of  the  Old 
Testament,  26,  27;  the  Synoptists, 
38;  St.  John,  41;  St.  Paul,  43; 
the  Apostolic  Fathers,  96;  the 
Apologists,  133;  Irenseus,  148; 
Hippolytus,  152;  4th  cent,  writ 
ers,  457,  458. 

Julian  the  Apostate;  bears  witness 
to  the  veneration  of  images,  479. 

Julian  of  Eclanum :  denies  original 
sin,  357,  35& 

Julius  I,  Pope:  convenes  a  synod  at 
Rome  and  reinstates  Athanasius, 
241 ;  reproves  the  Eusebians,  241 ; 
his  vindication  of  the  Primacy, 
328. 

4~  Justin  Martyr:  writings  of,  111; 
his  views  on  philosophy,  115;  his 
teaching  on  God,  118;  the  Logos, 
118-120;  the  Trinity,  126;  on 
man,  128;  the  immortality  of  the 
soul,  128,  129;  original  sin,  129; 
the  Church,  129-132?;  baptism, 
130,  131;  the  Eucharist,  131,  132; 
the  virginity  of  Mary,  133;  the 
Millennium,  133. 

Justinian,  Emperor :  condemns 
Origen,  415;  supports  the  Scyth 
ian  monks,  415;  his  treatment  of 
Pope  Vigilius,  417-419;  condemns 
the  Three  Chapters,  416. 

Lateran  Council :  convened  by  Mar 


tin  I,  427;  rejects  the  Ecthesis 
and  the  Typus,  and  condemns  the 
Monothelite  heresy,  427,  428. 

Leo  I,  Pope:  his  Epistola  Dog- 
matica,  402,  403;  his  letter  to  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  405;  con 
firms  the  Council,  but  not  the 
28th  canon,  407;  his  teaching  on 
the  redemption,  468;  Christology, 
434;  the  Primacy,  470. 

Leo  II,  Pope :  confirms  the  6th  Gen 
eral  Council,  430. 

Leo  III,  Pope:  approves  the  doc 
trine  of  the  Filioque  but  refuses 
its  insertion  in  the  Creed,  497; 
confirms  the  Synod  of  Frankfort, 
501. 

Leontius  of  Byzantium:  life  and 
writings,  437;  his  Christology, 
437-439;  his  relation  to  Scholas 
ticism,  439. 

Leontius  of  Neapolis :  his  teaching 
on  the  veneration  of  images,  480. 

Liberius,    Pope:    his    reputed    fall, 

245- 

Logos,  doctrine  of:  in  the  writings 
of  Philo,  31,  32;  St.  John,  32; 
Ignatius  of  Antioch,  74;  the 
Apologists,  118-125;  Hippolytus, 
150;  Novatian,  170;  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  192,  194;  Origen, 
200,  201,  203;  Arius,  222;  Alex 
ander  of  Alexandria,  122,  123; 
Tertullian,  165.  Cfr.  "Christol 
ogy." 

Lucian  of  Antioch :  teacher  of 
Arius,  220;  condemned  on  ac 
count  of  his  Christological  er 
rors,  220. 


Macedonian  Heresy:  its  rise  and 
spread,  248,  249 ;  condemned  by 
the  2nd  General  Council,  251. 

Macarius  of  Antioch:  defends  the 
Monothelite  heresy,  429;  is  ex 
communicated,  430. 

Leo  the  Isaurian :  proscribes  image- 
veneration,  482. 

Manichseism :  its  origin,  276,  277 ; 
fundamental  doctrines,  277;  re 
futed  by  Augustine,  277-279. 


INDEX 


519 


Marcellus  of  Ancyra:  accused  of 
Sabellianism,  237;  deposed  by  the 
Eusebians,  237;  reinstated  by  the 
Pope,  241 ;  at  Sardica,  242 ;  con 
demned  by  the  2nd  General 
Council,  251. 

Marcion,  Gnostic  heretic :  his  teach 
ing,  102,  103;  admitted  to  pen 
ance,  103. 

Mariology:  in  the  early  centuries, 
133,  146,  216,  442;  after  the 
Council  of  Ephesus,  446;  Mary's 
divine  motherhood,  74,  150,  166, 
3H,  390,  391,  398,  4ii,  442;  her 
perpetual  virginity,  442-445;  im 
maculate  conception,  443,  445- 
447;  eminent  sanctity,  446,  447; 
feasts  in  her  honor,  447,  448;  the 
Assumption,  447,  448,  note. 

Martin  I,  Pope:  convenes  the 
Lateran  Council  and  condemns 
the  Monothelite  heresy,  427,  428; 
his  teaching  on  the  procession  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  493. 

Matrimony:  teaching  of  the  Old 
Testament,  25;  St.  Paul,  43;  the 
Apostolic  Fathers,  96;  Tertul- 
lian,  164;  Cyprian,  179;  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  197;  Origen,  207; 
4th  cent,  writers,  355 ;  Augustine, 
347;  later  writers,  475.  Impedi 
ments  of,  355,  475 ;  indissolubility, 
44,  96,  197,  207,  179,  355,  475 ; 
cfr.  "Divorce." 

Martyrdom:  baptism  of  blood,  see 
"Baptism." 

Martyrium  Polycarpi :  contents  of, 
67 ;  its  teaching  on  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  73;  on  the  veneration  of 
saints,  450. 

Maximus  Confessor :  his  part  in 
the  Monothelite  controversy,  423, 
427;  is  tortured  and  banished, 
428 ;  his  Christology,  439-441 ;  his 
teaching  on  the  procession  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  493;  on  the  venera 
tion  of  images,  480. 

Maximus  of  Turin :  his  teaching 
on  the  veneration  of  saints,  451. 

Meletius  of  Antioch:  deposed  by 
the  Council  of  Nicaea,  227;  his 
connection  with  the  Semi-Arians, 


236,  239;  presides  at  the  2nd 
General  Council,  248. 

Melito  of  Sardis:  writings  of,  HI; 
his  teaching  on  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  121 ;  on  the  unity  of  per 
son  in  Christ,  127. 

Messias :  in  the  Prophetical  Books, 

27,  28;    in    Jewish    expectations, 

28,  29;    in    apocryphal    writings, 
29;  Philo,  32;  the  Synoptists,  45, 
46;  St.  Paul,  47;  as  preached  in 
the  early  Church,  51,  53. 

Methodius  of  Olympus :  his  teach 
ing  on  original  sin,  213,  360;  on 
the  Church,  214. 

Millennium,  the:  doctrine  of,  105- 
107;  origin  of  the  doctrine,  105; 
defended  by  Pseudo-Barnabas, 
97,  107;  Papias,  106,  107;  Justin 
Martyr,  107;  Irenseus,  107;  Ter- 
tullian,  107. 

Minucius,  Felix:  writings  of,  112; 
opposes  the  veneration  of  images, 
478. 

Monarchianism :  origin  of  the 
heresy,  153,  154;  different  sys 
tems,  154;  Dynamic,  154;  Modal- 
istic,  155,  156. 

Monophysite  Heresy:  its  origin, 
401,  402;  condemned  at  Chalce- 
don,  406;  later  Monophysites, 
408. 

Monothelite  Heresy:  its  origin, 
423-428;  condemned  by  the  6th 
General  Council,  430;  conduct  of 
Pope  Honorius,  424,  425. 

Montanism:  rise  and  spread  of, 
156-158. 

Mother  of  God,  the:  see  "Mariol 
ogy." 

Muratorian  Canon :  a  list  of  New 
Testament  writings,  136,  137. 


Nicaea:  ist  Council  of,  223-228; 
condemns  the  teaching  of  Arius 
and  defines  the  consubstantiality 
of  the  Son  with  the  Father,  225- 
227;  Creed  of,  226;  canons,  228; 
adjusts  the  paschal  dispute,  227; 
deposes  Meletius,  227. —  2nd 
Council  of;  condemns  the  Icono- 


520 


INDEX 


clasts  and  approves  the  venera 
tion  of  images,  486,  487. 

Nicetas  of  Remesiana:  writings  of, 
235;  his  teaching  on  the  Trin 
ity,  270. 

Noetus:  Monarchian  heretic,  154, 
156. 

Novatian:  life  and  writings,  169, 
170;  his  teaching  on  the  divinity 
of  the  Word,  170;  on  the  Holy 
Ghost,  170,  171;  divine  sonship, 
171;  Christology,  171. 

Optatus  of  Mileve:  life  and  writ 
ings,  235;  his  teaching  on  the 
notes  of  the  Church,  329-331 ;  the 
Primacy,  331 ;  the  sacraments, 
346. 

Orders,  Holy:  in  the  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul,  42;  the  Acts,  52;  the 
Didache,  87;  Clement  of  Rome, 
81;  Tertullian,  168;  4th  cent, 
writers,  355,  326;  Augustine,  347, 
350;  later  writers,  474;  charac 
ter,  342,  350. 

Origen :  life  and  writings,  197,  199 ; 
contents  of  the  Peri  Archon,  198- 
203 ;  his  teaching  on  God,  201 ; 
the  Logos,  201 ;  the  Holy  Spirit, 
2oi ;  the  Trinity,  201,  203;  Holy 
Scripture,  202,  203;  creation,  202, 
203 ;  preexistence  of  souls,  202 ; 
the  angels,  202,  299;  Christology, 
204 ;  the  redemption,  204,  205 ;  the 
Church,  205;  penance,  205-207, 
185;  the  Eucharist,  207;  matri 
mony,  207,  208;  baptism  of  chil 
dren,  205;  original  sin,  208,  360; 
purgatory,  452 ;  apokatastasis, 
202;  later  controversy  on  his 
writings,  415 ;  condemnation  by 
the  sth  General  Council,  415. 

Pacian  of  Barcelona:  his  three  let 
ters,  235;  his  teaching  on  orig 
inal  sin,  362. 

Paganism:  corrupting  influence  of, 
14-17;  opposition  to  Christianity, 
107-109. 

Papias  of  Hierapolis:  some  frag 
ments  of  his  writings,  66;  his 
teaching  on  the  Millennium,  106. 


Patripassianism :  see  "  Monarchian- 
ism." 

Paul  of  Samosata:  his  Adoptionist 
teaching,  155. 

Paulinus  of  Aquileia:  his  teaching 
on  the  procession  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  496;  opposes  Spanish 
Adoptionism,  499. 

Pelagius:  his  denial  of  original 
sm>  357-36o;  his  teaching  on 
grace,  358;  359;  368,  369. 

Pelagius  II,  Pope:  confirms  the 
5th  General  Council,  419. 

Penance:  in  the  early  Church,  183- 
189.  Cfr.  "Sin,  forgiveness  of." 

Peter  of  Alexandria :  his  opposition 
to  Origen,  213;  his  teaching  on 
the  Incarnation,  213. 

Pharisees:  a  Jewish  party,  its  or 
igin  and  object,  20. 

Philo  Judseus :  his  teaching  on  God, 
31;  the  Logos,  31,  32;  creation, 
31,  32;  angelology,  32;  anthro 
pology,  32,  33. 

Philosophy:  of  the  Romans,  10, 
ii ;  the  Greeks,  12;  Philo,  31; 
pagan  philosophy  as  viewed  by 
the  Apologists,  114,  115;  by  Cle 
ment  of  Alexandria,  191. 

Phcebadius  of  Agen:  writings  of, 
235;  his  teaching  on  the  Trinity, 
270;  the  divinity  of  Christ,  313. 

Photius:  made  patriarch  of  Con 
stantinople,  502;  his  schism,  502; 
deposed  by  the  Emperor  and  con 
demned  by  the  Sth  General  Coun 
cil,  503. 

Qvffis:  use  of  the  term  by  Basil, 
263;  Amphilochius,  266;  Cyril  of 
Alexandria,  409;  the  Antiochene 
school,  409. 

A-Polycarp  of  Smyrna:  his  letter  to 
the  Philippians,  66,  67;  his  teach 
ing  on  the  divinity  of  Christ,  73; 
the  Trinity,  76;  the  hierarchy, 
88;  on  penance,  93. 

Prayers  for  the  dead:  see  "Purga 
tory,  suffrages." 

Praxeas :    Monarchian   heretic,    156. 

Predestination:  teaching  of  Augus 
tine,  378;  of  the  Semi-Pelagians, 
281;  of  Lucidus,  384;  Faustus  of 


INDEX 


Riez,  384;  Prosper,  382,  "  De  Vo- 
catione  Gentium,"  383. 

Primacy,  the:  teaching  of  the 
Synoptists,  37;  St.  John,  40; 
Ignatius,  87;  Clement  of  Rome, 
82,  83;  Hermas,  87;  Origen,  205; 
Cyprian,  174-177;  Irenseus,  143, 
144;  Tertullian,  167;  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  196;  4th  cent,  writ 
ers,  330,  331,  327,  328;  Augustine, 
335,  336;  later  writers,  470.* 

Priscillianism :  its  origin  and 
spread,  279,  280;  its  doctrines, 
280-282. 

Prosper  of  Aquitaine:  opposes  the 
views  of  Cassian,  381,  382;  his 
teaching  on  grace,  predestination, 
reprobation,  382;  appeals  to  the 
Pope,  382,  383. 

Pseudo-Areopagite,  the:  his  teach 
ing  on  God,  260;  the  angels,  295, 
296;  the  Assumption,  448. 

Pseudo-Barnabas :  contents  of  the 
letter,  64;  its  teaching  on  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  73,  74;  unity 
of  person  in  Christ,  77,  78;  the 
redemption,  78,  79;  the  Church, 
88;  confession,  184;  the  Millen 
nium,  97. 

Purgatory:  doctrine  of,  452;  suf 
ferings  in,  453,  455;  suffrages  for 
the  dead,  453-456. 

Real  Presence,  the:  as  taught  by 
Ignatius,  92;  Justin  Martyr,  132; 
Irenseus,  147;  Tertullian,  167, 
168;  Cyprian,  178;  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  196;  Origen,  207; 
4th  cent,  writers,  352,  353;  later 
writers,  472. 

Redemption,  doctrine  of:  in  St. 
Paul,  48,  49;  the  Apostolic 
Fathers,  77-80;  the  Apologists, 
127;  Irenseus,  146;  Hippolytus, 
151;  Tertullian,  166;  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  196;  Origen,  204, 
20$;  4th  cent  writers,  Greek, 
317-320;  Latin,  320,  321;  Augus 
tine,  321,  322;  later  writers,  468. 

Religion :  among  the  Romans,  8,  9, 
14;  the  Greeks,  n,  12,  13;  Orien 
tal  nations,  13. 


Rusticus,  deacon:  his  teaching  on 
the  veneration  of  images,  479, 
480. 

Sabbath:  observance  of  among  the 
Jews,  25;  among  the  early  Chris 
tians,  55,  56. 

Sabellius:  Monarchian  heretic,  156. 

Sacraments:  symbolism  of,  338- 
34i,  343,  3445  character,  341,  344, 
350;  efficacy  does  not  depend  on 
the  moral  disposition  of  the  min 
ister,  342-348,  349;  disposition  of 
the  recipient,  349;  institution  by 
Christ,  348,  definition  of,  347,  348; 
number,  350,  351,  471. 

Sacrifice:  among  the  Romans,  8; 
the  Greeks,  n;  Oriental  nations, 
13 ;  in  the  Old  Testament,  24,  25, 
28;  the  Synoptists,  38;  St.  John, 
40;  St.  Paul,  42;  the  Apostolic 
Fathers,  91,  92;  the  Apologists, 
132;  Irenseus,  147;  Tertullian, 
168;  Cyprian,  178;  Origen,  207; 
4th  cent,  writers,  354,  355;  later 
writers,  472. 

Sadducees:   a  Jewish  sect,  20. 

Saints:  veneration  of,  449-452; 
Communion  of,  463. 

Satisfaction:    see    "Redemption." 

Schism:  Novatian,  169;  Donatist, 
323-325;  Acacian,  413;  Photian, 
502;  teaching  on,  the  Apostolic 
Fathers,  97,  98;  Justin  Martyr, 
130;  Irenseus,  143-145;  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  196;  Adamantius, 
214;  Cyprian,  173,  174;  4th  cent, 
writers,  325,  326;  Augustine,  332, 

Scythian  Monks:  their  defense  of 
the  formula,  "unus  ex  Trinitate 
crucifixus  est,"  414;  oppose  Faus- 
tus  of  Riez,  384. 

Secunda  dementis :  origin  and  con 
tents,  68,  69;  its  teaching  on  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  74,  75;  the 
Church,  88,  89;  the  seal  of  bap 
tism,  91 ;  confession  of  sins,  93, 
184. 

Semi-Arians :  opposed  to  the  Coun 
cil  of  Nicaea,  241-244;  deny  the 
divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  244; 


522 


INDEX 


condemned  by  the  2nd  General 
Council,  251. 

Semi-Pelagians:  attribute  the  be 
ginning  of  good  works  to  man's 
natural  powers,  379-386;  con 
demned  by  the  2nd  Council  of 
Orange,  385. 

Serapion  of  Thmuis :  his  teaching 
on  confirmation,  342 ;  extreme 
unction,  355. 

Sergius  of  Constantinople:  his 
heretical  views,  423,  431 ;  the 
Ecthesis,  424,  426;  his  letters  to 
Pope  Honorius,  424;  condemned 
by  the  6th  General  Council,  430. 

Simon  Magus:  teaching  of,  102. 

Sin,  Original :  teaching  of  the  Old 
Testament,  24;  the  Apocryphas, 
24;  Philo,  33;  St.  Paul,  48,  49; 
the  Apologists,  129 ;  Irenseus,  145 ; 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  195 ; 
Origen,  360;  Methodius,  360,  213; 
Cyprian,  361 ;  4th  cent,  writers, 
Greek,  360,  361;  Latin,  361,  362; 
Augustine,  362-367;  later  writ 
ers,  467,  468. 

Sin,  Personal,  forgiveness  of:  in 
the  Old  Testament,  24;  St.  John, 
40;  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  93-96, 
184;  Dionysius  of  Corinth,  184; 
Irenaeus,  148,  188;  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  197;  Origen,  205- 
207,  185;  Tertullian,  186,  188; 
Hippolytus,  151,  187;  Cyprian, 
179;  Pope  Callistus,  187;  4th  cent, 
writers,  351,  352;  Augustine,  351, 
note;  later  writers,  473. 

Social  Conditions :  among  the 
Romans,  6,  7 ;  the  Greeks,  7 ;  the 
Jews,  19-21,  25 ;  of  first  converts, 
56,  57- 

Sophronius  of  Jerusalem:  his  part 
in  the  Monothelite  controversy, 
423,  424;  his  synodal  letter,  424. 

Stephen,  Pope:  defends  the  validity 
of  heretical  baptism,  180-182. 

Sylvester,  Pope :  sends  legates  to 
the  ist  Council  of  Nicsea,  224. 


Tarasius     of     Constantinople:     his 
teaching    on    the    veneration    of 


images,  486;  petitions  the  Pope 
for  a  general  council,  486. 

Tatian:  writings  of,  in;  his  teach 
ing  on  the  Logos,  121,  123,  124; 
on  original  sin,  129. 

Theodore,  Pope:  condemns  the 
Ecthesis  and  deposes  Paul  of 
Constantinople,  427. 

Theodore  of  Canterbury:  his  teach 
ing  on  reordination,  474;  on 
divorce,  475;  the  Filioque,  496. 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia :  life  and 
writings,  232;  opposes  Eucharis- 
tic  symbolism,  340;  his  teaching 
on  the  person  of  Christ,  388,  389; 
the  Mother  of  God,  389;  pro 
cession  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  493. 

Theodoret  of  Cyrus:  attacks  Cy 
ril's  anathematisms,  396;  con 
demned  by  the  5th  General  Coun 
cil,  419;  his  Christology,  435- 
437;  his  ^  teaching  on  the  venera 
tion  of  images,  479;  on  the  pro 
cession  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  492. 

Theodotus :  Monarchian  heretic, 
154;  excommunicated  by  Pope 
Victor,  154. 

Theognastus:  his  teaching  on  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  212. 

Theology:  beginnings  of,  in  the 
West,  159;  in  the  East,  190. 

Toledo,  council  of:  inserts  the 
Filioque  clause  in  the  Creed,  495. 

Theotokos:  see,  "Mother  of  God," 
under  "Mariology." 

Traducianism :  teaching  of  Tertul 
lian,  301 ;  4th  cent,  writers,  300, 
301 ;  later  writers,  465,  466. 

Transubstantiation  :  see,  "  Euchar- 
istic  conversion/'  under  '*  Euchar 
ist." 

Trinity,  the:  teaching  of  the  Old 
Testament,  22;  the  Synoptists, 
44 ;  St.  John,  44 ;  St.  Paul,  44,  45 ; 
the  Apostolic  Fathers,  75,  76;  the 
Apologists,  126,  127;  Irenseus, 
146;  Monarchian  heretics,  156; 
Tertullian,  162-165 ;  Novatian, 
170 ;  Clement  of  Alexandria,  195 ; 
Origen,  201,  203;  Dionysius  of 
Corinth,  212;  Gregory  Thauma- 
turgus,  212,  2*13;  Adamantius, 


INDEX 


523 


214;  ist  Council  of  Nicaea,  226; 
the  2nd  General  Council,  252;  4th 
cent  writers,  Greek,  261-268; 
Latin,  269-275;  Augustine,  270- 
274;  the  Quicumque,  274,  275. 

Trisagion:  added  to  by  Peter  the 
Fuller,  414. 

Typus,  the:  edict  of  Constans  II 
during  the  Monothelite  controv 
ersy,  427;  condemned  by  Martin 
I,  428. 


Victorinus,  Marius:  his  writings, 
235 ;  his  teaching  on  the  necessity 
of  grace,  372;  trichotomy,  300; 
preexistence  of  souls,  300;  pro 
cession  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  495. 

Vigilius,  Pope:  opposes  the  con 
demnation  of  the  Three  Chap 
ters,  416;  his  Judicatum  and  Con- 
stitutum,  417,  418;  refuses  to  ap 
pear  at  the  Council,  418;  approves 


the  Council,  419;  the  bearing  of 
his  decisions  on  Papal  Infallibil 
ity,  420-421. 

Victor  I,  Pope:  the  paschal  con 
troversy,  139,  140;  excommuni 
cates  Theodotus,  154. 

Vincent  of  Lerins:  defends  Semi- 
Pelagian  views,  382. 


Worship:  among  the  Romans,  8; 
the  Greeks,  n;  Oriental  nations, 
13;  the  first  Christians,  54-56. 
57;  during  the  2nd  century,  131, 
132. 


Zeno  of  Verona:  his  teaching  on 
the  Trinity,  270;  the  Incarnation, 
313;  on  Mary's  virginity,  444; 
eternity  of  hell,  461. 

Zozimus,  Pope :  condemns  the 
Pelagian  heresy,  358. 


OTTEN,  B.J.  BQT 

History  of  dogmas. 


Og 
v.l